Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172

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)

@Liz basically what Cullen said, although the main reason I mentioned it was because although it was quoted the whole unprovoked nature of it is probably something worth at least noting Iostn (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Iostn and Cullen, thanks for pointing that out. Stating pronoun preference is so common in my little part of the world that I can sometimes be oblivious when it is used as an insult. I don't know if that qualifies a person as transphobic but it was definitely not appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a collective insult, like he-she before it. Brazenly weaponized this year, no less. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a new right-wing talking point. Basically a combination of anti-nonbinary prejudice, but also transphobia as TERFs seem to think nonbinary is a stepping stone to being trans (a la the old canard that bisexuality is a stepping stone to being homosexual). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to look at the nuances here, but I would have to respectfully disagree with the idea that this was a light or ambiguous violation. Plenty of users have felt angry and frustrated at times on WP, but it had never descended to a low of making explicitly discriminatory, both Islamophobic and transphobic, comments towards other editors. Connecting transgender people as a whole with hating Jews, is transphobic. Connecting anyone they disagree with on Israel as a "radical Islamic propagandist", a four-fold assumption of them being: 1- Muslim in religion 2- Islamist in thinking 3- radicalized and 4- propagadanist. I have been editing on WP for a decade and I have never encountered this level of unfiltered hate speech. This should be taken extremely seriously. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict and antisemitism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry, Edit Reversion, and Harassment

• 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)
3. 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Evidence of Sockpuppetry:

1. Identical Edit Reversions Across IPs: All three IP addresses reverted my edits in identical ways shortly after each other, suggesting coordinated activity. Contribution Links: 76.68.24.171, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C

1. Editing the Same Articles from the Same Location: All three IPs have edited the same articles from what appears to be the same geographical location. IP Location Verification Links: 76.68.24.171, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C

• Harassment and Violation of Civility Policy:

The user has made personal remarks that could be considered harassment, including comments about my location. This violates Wikipedia’s Civility and Personal Attacks policy. Diff Link: Evidence of personal comments

• Description of Disruptive Edit Reversions:

This user has been consistently reverting my edits across multiple articles without clear reason, preventing constructive updates.

• Request for Admin Investigation:

Please investigate this suspected sockpuppetry and harassment. The user’s behavior is creating a disruptive environment and obstructing contributions. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It happens that IP users will involuntarily jump across different IPs, and that is not considered sockpuppetry if not done to break policy. In fact, the last two IPs are from the same /64 range (the first half of the IP, which depends on the device, is the same, while the second half can often change randomly). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby ok

but other extended confirmed users are considering that those are different user. And they are saying that the three ip users are not agreeing with my edit.

is it fair?

That IP user is not letting me update articles. what should i do? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As always, the best thing to do when someone is reverting your edits is to discuss it with them. As /64 ranges don't have a unified talk page, and the reverts happened on multiple articles, it might be difficult to find a place to discuss, but I see that they replied to another user at User talk:2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C, presumably talking about their reverts of your edits. It can be good to use that as a starting point to discuss the reverts there, especially since they seem to mention policies such as WP:OR. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I tried to discuss but he cleared the topic from his talk page from another IP address.

in most edits he mentions this WP:OR policy.

and what about this ? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Their edit summary isn't very respectful, but the IP is right that this addition was OR and shouldn't have been added without sources. Also, you've both been edit-warring on that page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cerium4B: The unregistered user should not have made that gibe about a "poor place", that was uncivil. But as Chaotic Enby says, they have a point. Verifiability—providing references—is one of our basic policies, and that's what the IP is referring to when they talk about WP:OR. Can you find a reference to cite that says Nawabganj National Park is a small forest of Sal trees? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir

I’ve added references in that article.

also giving here — https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/country-news/2019/06/06/777199

Isn’t 517.61 Hector a small forest?

I have visited this place many times…! - Cerium4B • Talk? • 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Banned editor seeks to be unblocked: Rishabisajakepauler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Rishabisajakepauler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler/Archive

A person from Texas who is banned per WP:THREESTRIKES has asked to be unblocked. Rishabisajakepauler has used at least 16 sockpuppets and a wide array of IPs to evade his initial block. The bottom of User talk:Rishabisajakepauler contains his incorrectly formatted unblock request from yesterday, saying that he is older and wiser now.

Pinging active editors who have tangled with him in the past: Oshwah, Ad Orientem, Izno, Girth Summit, TheSandDoctor, Firefly, Callanecc, TheAmazingPeanuts, Muhandes, GeneralNotability, Blablubbs, Btspurplegalaxy, RoySmith, ToBeFree, AshMusique, ThedancingMOONpolice, Suffusion of Yellow, Sir Sputnik, CAMERAwMUSTACHE, Cabayi, JBW, Ponyo, Certes and NinjaRobotPirate. Perhaps someone could mentor him. I am not in favor of granting him full pardon at this time. He must earn the community's trust. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on the sockpuppet investigation page they were socking as recently as October 26 of this year, so the standard offer would not apply, and they were also dropping racial slurs so I do not believe they have matured at all. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a bad sign. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No To emphasize your point: October 26, 2024, they used a string of racial slurs to attack another user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Older but not wiser it would appear. Still showing no potential to be an asset to the community. Sadly this is an all-too-easy decline. Cabayi (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If a problematic editor comes back after a few years, with no recent history of socking, and they can give a clear explanation of what they want to do here and they understand why they were blocked, I'm all for second chances. Sometimes even a third. But there is too much history here. And too much of it is recent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline unblock per the not wanting to wait 6 months and imautrity. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 00:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iranian Zazaki uncivil and WP:NOTHERE

Iranian Zazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please consider blocking User:Iranian Zazaki. I think this racist nonsensical response to a general notice on their talk page makes it sufficiently clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Aside from that, their edits so far, nearly all reverted, have been non-constructive, unsourced, and in one case WP:UNCIVIL: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. R Prazeres (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Gachago

See [6] [7] Andre🚐 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. No objections to another admin lengthening the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Ziobitch" is a particularly vile form of ethnonationalist harassment. I have extended the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 13 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)

I blocked the /44 for two weeks because 2A02:8440:250D:86B5:1052:608B:EB90:8302 made two more of these unexplained/unsourced number changes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 13 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)

@Ponyo: The same vandalism has continued from Special:Contribs/2001:448A:50E0::/46. Could you apply a wider block? Thanks. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Another IP editor engaging in disruptive editing

This IP user has received numerous warnings - from what I can see here all of their edits are disruptive and being reverted... their current target is floodplain Artem...^Talk 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Artem P75, you are not correctly linking to pages. You don't need the entire "https://en.wikipedia...etc" if you are linking to a page, not an edit. That said, most of these notices that were posted happened some time ago and you have to supply "diffs" or edits that make you think this is an "urgent" or "intractible" case that belongs at ANI. You can't just link to their contributions, you have to point out diffs that violate our policies.

Also, you have now brought two cases to ANI tonight. As I said, this is a noticeboard for some urgent problems that need to be immediately addressed (like WP:AIV. You haven't demonstrated why this case needs administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, link to their User talk page with a simple User talk:165.228.39.86 rather than the entire URL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Liz Thank you for letting me know! I will take that onboard for the future :) Artem...^Talk 10:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP refusing to WP:LISTEN and accusing others of political agendas

176.88.165.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively and tendentiously editing across multiple pages, arguing that those who disagree with them have political agendas or do not understand policy (or both!). Classic WP:IDHT.

At this talk page discussion, three users (myself, HistoryofIran, and Remsense) attempted to convey to this IP that unreliable sources do not fall under WP:RSOPINION. They refused to listen, and resorted to incivil comments, such as: "sabotaging for political agendas/to suppress opinions", "sabotaging for arbitrary reasons", and around four personal attacks in one diatribe. In the end, we got fed up with their refusal to understand WP:PAGs, and I advised others to move on from the merry-go-round of their WP:LISTEN behaviour.

The IP also started this discussion at RSN to argue the same point. First, ActivelyDisinterested responded, and three times answered whether RSOPINION was a good argument. This was of course not good enough for the IP: "You have not answered". ActivelyDisinterested grew uninterested(!) because of the IP' refusal to WP:LISTEN to others explaining WP:PAGs, and moved on. FactOrOpinion also participated in this discussion; I'd like to say that they and the IP found common ground, but that of course didn't happen. Instead, FactOrOpinion moved on, saying "I've read the relevant policy, and it seems I understand it better than you do...You've had several people tell you "no." At this point, this is a case of WP:LISTEN".

Then, the IP decided to edit war and was blocked for 31h (but not before filing two unfounded, retaliatory reports). Upon their block expiring today, they filed another EW report, once again alleging that everyone else's edits were political in intent. When Crazycomputers declined this report, the IP accused them of taking sides, and claimed that they were "corrupted" and that they, HoI, and myself, are "racists". Crazycomputers grew tired of their refusal to listen to policy, and moved on, saying "this clearly is a case of I didn't hear that".

Anyone else see a pattern here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, is it okay if I ping you if this behaviour resumes once the block expires? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You can, but post something at AN/I so other admins can jump in if I'm not there. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I only interacted with them once at the ANEW report and was completely unaware of the rest of this. Having only talked with them briefly, I have to say I'm not terribly surprised at the IDHT trend. After linking them to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD their conclusion was that these pages don't say what they plainly say. (Nor WP:ONUS neither WP:BRD has such policy. Otherwise, you could revert any edit and then that editor would have been expected to open discussion.) I strongly suspect that when this user comes back they will return to their previous behavior and simply refuse to listen to anyone about anything. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Assistance in cleanup of Hamish Ross LTA puppet damage

NOTE: User intentionally not notified of this, as it appears to be an LTA. Please correct me if I'm wrong for not notifying.

I've blocked Seawolf35 HGAV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a very likely Hamish Ross puppet. As usual, lots of inappropriate warnings. This account has made a lot of edits and I could use some help in cleanup. If someone wants to jump in, please notify here. In the meantime, I'll start from the bottom of the list of edits and work up from there.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I just ran a mass-rollback on all of that account's edits. Any remaining edits are probably page creations that will need manual reverting. I'll start looking through those now. Home Lander (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also starting to wonder what exactly I'm looking at. This user is acting like Hamish Ross but has other edits that are not like that. Would like an experienced admin to review what is going on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of the mainspace edits were ok (reversion of actual vandalism); any that got caught by the mass-rollback I did have been self-reverted. Home Lander (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Had me worried that I misidentified the LTA. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not saying for certain this is Hamish Ross, but from the limited involvement I've had with them, it seems like it. Home Lander (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Home Lander, in the future, please wait for more confirmation before you mass rollback a user's edits. Mass rollback, like mass deletion, should only happen with obvious vandals and confirmed sockpuppets. Mass rollback is a drastic action to take against an editor. Have you reverted your reversions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: what makes you think this is Hamish Ross? This is the legitimate alt of a user with 8k+ edits. Just from a quick review of this account's reverts, they all look fine. —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser agrees this isn't Hamish. No comment on anything else at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Was opening and closing lots of edit requests, templating IP users, at a rapid rate. As a said above, I started to have some misgivings after going through the edits a second time, looking at the mix of good and bad actions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See, for example: User talk:Book millstones#November 2024.

However, does look like I was wrong. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reverse the block and/or invite the editor here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Y Unblocked. Came here to say the same thing as Ingenuity. SilverLocust 💬 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,SilverLocust, about the PAID warnings claimed inappropriate. That user created Uplifting Service, which was basically a sourced promo piece for a book, combined with their username, which led me to seek clarification from them, which I got. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seawolf35 HGAV, could you please discuss here with Rsjaffe about your edits that led to this block, and maybe sort out the problems that you two had? Fathoms Below (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s not anything to sort out. I’ll just flat out apologize and explain my, in retrospect, incorrect actions. I’m on phone, so this might take a few minutes. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I noted the automated edit filter report indicating a possible Hamish Ross puppet. I then looked at the editing pattern and saw some odd patterns. Closing others edit requests, rapid templating, often IP addresses, and some unusual activity (e.g. the double template noted above. I then blocked as I was concerned about continued disruption and came here for help. However, after I started delving deeper into the edits to start reverting them, I found that I agreed with more than I disagreed with. At that point, I came back here to say I may have made a mistake, and asked for experienced help.

Agsin, my sincere apologies for blocking based on an unusual pattern of editing rather than sreviewing each edit. I was over concerned with disruption, as Hamis Ross’s edits cause lots of puzzled and upset reactions. The though this might be that LTA led me to react faster than I normally do and is a lesson learned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the explanation and it is an understandable mistake. Best, Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You too. I hate messing up, and as an admin, the mess ups become very public. I appreciate your graciousness. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Now where can I get me one of those accidental block userboxes. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:136.38.220.43 repeated vandalism after block - requesting speedy block

diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7

User has just come off a block as per their talk page and are spamming "awesome" into various horse related articles(?) extremely quickly.

@Liz I am tagging you in hopes of a fast resolution as you seem to be the most active here... sorry if not appropriate this is my first time raising an AN/I request Artem...^Talk 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have just posted on my talk page Artem...^Talk 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism for 1 week. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for a fast response @Voorts Artem...^Talk 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy elsewhere on the project but luckily Voorts is just as active as I am! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75: Next time, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report users with a blatant need to get blocked. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see Liz has already told you about this below, happy editing! ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries @ExclusiveEditor I appreciate your help, thank you! Artem...^Talk 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

2409:40E3:103D:8274:D9A9:8FA1:ED7F:C05E

Requesting evaluation of 2409:40E3:0:0:0:0:0:0/32's contributions, and recommending a NOTHERE block, upping Black Kite's page block for disruptive editing to indefinite, based on their sketchy contribution history, high revert percentage, and PA's attacking Ocaasi in edit summaries (diff) and on their Talk page in response to an admin warning (here; diff). Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

IP addresses should not be indeffed. Requesting indef IP block is not worth it as IP addresses are subject to change. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week and revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

96.83.255.53

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

... probably needs a short block for various personal attacks. C F A 💬 02:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump nominees

There is lots of edit warring (much of it unintentional) at the pages of the recent Trump nominees (Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, etc.) as to how to designate them: "nominee", prospective nominee", "presumptive, nominee", etc. I would love a centralized discussion with guidance from someone who knows the correct terminology, but I don't know where to start such a discussion. I checked relevant pages from four years ago, but the same sort of uncertainty existed then, too. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment at one of the village pump pages, with incoming links from all affected pages. Also, feel free to request protection on pages experiencing repeat edit warring. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

IP User disruptive behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2600:4040:4522:2100:6C29:7904:43C:A130 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP user is repeatedly engaging in edit wars and vandalizing articles, disrupting content quality and accuracy.

---DelphiLore (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bigamy?

According to Liz Lloyd's BLP, she married Ed Miliband in 2002. His bio has him married to someone else. Someone may like to fix this. I would, but I've forgotten how. Scott Mac 18:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI isn't really the place for this - WP:BLPN would be a better place. It's no secret that Lloyd and Miliband dated early in their careers, but they were not married. It looks like this assertion started life as two separate assertions (e.g. in this version from 2017), and presumably some helpful but careless copyeditor merged conflated the two facts. I have removed the assertion that she used to be partners with Miliband - it's true, but it's trivia. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible Gaming of Permissions Ethiopian Epic

@Ethiopian Epic Only has 13 edits[8] all made in under an hour. 11 were to Government of Japan and the last two were made to Samurai, a semi-protected article. The changes made at Samurai are controversial, and were the subject of a Talk Page discussion. The dispute was also evidence in the Yasuke ArbCom case. The changes to the Samurai article are largely reverting to an earlier version, but done manually. It is unlikely that a new user would rewrite the article using earlier phrasing. It also removed cited material. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't look like autoconfirmed gaming, it just looks like editing. I don't see anything in the recent arbcom case that applies here, either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Really? 11 minor edits and then a big edit on a protected article? I find these two especially suspicious:[9][10]

I just mentioned the ArbCom case for context, full disclosure etc. The T-ban on Yasuke, broadly construed, doesn't affect Samurai, right? Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban could, depending on the exact edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that a textbook example of "broadly construed" would be that a ban on Yasuke extends to the samurai article as well; otherwise "broadly construed" has no meaning. It means "give the topic the widest possible berth." EEng 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing about race in this, it just looks like a content dispute. Secretlondon (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Race had little to do with the Yasuke ArbCom case. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots: can you provide a link to the revision of the article you are saying that they have largely reverted to? I tend to agree that that would be an odd coincidence, but without a version to compare against it's hard to evaluate (and I don't particularly want to start guessing). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here is a change I made on 5. October[11]. It was changed by a different editor again in October [12] Ethiopian Epic then restored the version from before 5. October, as well as restored the disputed line about retainers. Since I had added some of the stuff that existed before 5. October, this did restore some of my edits as well as revert other contributions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the version that I think is closest to the last version by EE[13] Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused: that literally is the last version by EE. Which version from the past are to compare it against? If giving a link is a problem, just give us a date/time stamp that you are saying they are effectively reverting to. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, diff 37 is supposed to be a side by side comparison between the last version by EE and the version at 05:17, 11 September 2024 [14] Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a look around, and I can see what you're getting at - they have pretty much undone a number of edits that you and others have done at that page. However - 'gaming' autoconfirmed isn't really a thing - the bar for getting an autoconfirmed account is intentionally very low, it's really just there to make it slightly more burdensome for high-speed vandals to be able to target their preferred pages. That article is semi-protected (indefinitely, which is unusual) because of high volumes of anonymous vandalism. Whatever this is, it isn't obvious vandalism. I don't think it's a particularly big deal - they reverted some changes, you have reverted their revert - let's see what happens next. They might not return, or they might engage on the talk page - it's a bit early to be talking about blocking anyone. If you think it's a sock of another account (blocked or otherwise), head over to SPI and put some meat on the bones of your suspicions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for looking at the situation and explaining things. At this point, I think I will wait and see what happens. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Girth Summit here. Confirmed status is no big deal - it is easy to get the "proper" way, so gaming 10 edits doesn't mean much. If you have suspicions about this editor, or they are being disruptive, then you should pursue other avenues. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats?

Earl of Arundel was blocked by Bbb23 for one week for Edit warring at Talk:2024 United States presidential election based on a report at WP:AN3; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:RGW; using Wikipedia as a soapbox. In response, they have twice ([15][16]) posted about the need for Congressional action to stop Wikipedia from "censorship" of conservatives, and to hold organizations such as this one accountable for their actions.

I interpret this as a violation of WP:No legal threats, which states A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. Emphasis added. Bbb23 says they are on the fence about that. Do other admins think this constitutes an ongoing legal threat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Any sort of threat made to force a specific action should be regarded as a summarily-blockable offence. I'd up the block to indef; even if it isn't strictly-speaking a legal threat the intent is very obvious. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have made a third call for Congressional action, insisting it is not a legal threat, while accusing us of libel and lamenting the lack of laws to punish private organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation.[17] I guess they WP:IDHT when I tried to point out that the First Amendment applies to the government, not private entities. I would have indeffed them already but for being WP:INVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Typically I won't care either way since we would usually laugh it off that it would be hard to find a way to force it through the Congress, but this is a concern, so yes. – robertsky (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think the best course of action would be to apply WP:TNT to Talk:2024 United States presidential election and just blank the whole page. Ooooof. WP:NOTFORUM is just gone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that interest in the talk page has increased in line with the election. I doubt it will fully quiet down until February, but we will see. I will say that even attempting to archive one off-topic and then duplicative discussion didn't work out, given this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 revoked TPA. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch as a legal threat. But it's a giant bucket of WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:EW, and all sorts of related goodies. And I'm slightly sympathetic philosophically in at least one regard (I think we're too lax about MSNBC), but if this editor doesn't realize after eight years that a project based on consensus requires accepting that you may be on the losing side of an argument, I'm not sure how you go from there. Given that the editor has made useful contributions elsewhere before, why not consider simply a topic ban on WP:CT/AP? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is the support an editor like this can receive from a few editors who agree with them ideologically. Here, they have gotten themselves into trouble through edit warring and legal threats and other editors are thanking them for their good work on the project. I think it can have the effect of making the blocked editor less willing to admit to their mistakes so it really does them no favors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ruthen Pagan

I cannot tell if this is a vandalism-only account, but some of the edits are purely disruptive while others look fine (at least not obvious vandalism). In this edit to Lithuanian–Bermontian War they replaced the flag to the gay pride one and in a subsequent edit they wrote: "According to some sources, Pavel Bermondt-Avalov was homosexual, and the flag of his army was rainbow, which corresponds to LGBT". I gave them a vandalism warning as a result. After this, in their edits to Pavlo Lapshyn, they changed "Ukrainian white supremacist terrorist" to "Russian white supremacist terroristwho citizen of Ukraine" in this edit. I also gave them an EE CT alert earlier. Mellk (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 4 days and have never posted to a User talk page or Talk page. Their only discussion edit was one post at the Teahouse so this discussion might have to occur without their participation. At this point, they seem like a typical inexperienced editor but they are editing in some Contentious areas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: They are still continuing to make unexplained and unsourced changes. For example here they added a unit to the infobox with "maybe" in parentheses although there is no mention of the unit in the article. Here they change figures without explanation. I am not sure if they speak English but most of their edits have been reverted for the same reasons. Mellk (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, Donald Trump, and WP:OWN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At least three times, user GoodDay has made edits like this one, commanding editors to refrain from adding a word they don't like. There is no supporting consensus, but this will not be clear to other editors who see the hidden comment. Thus, GoodDay is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior at this article.

For GoodDay's position on this issue, see User talk:GoodDay#Unauthorized hidden comment and User_talk:Mandruss#Trump 2. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, Mandruss has ownership issues at Talk:Donald Trump. That being said, I'm disappointed he's taken a dispute between only us, to this level :( GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried other avenues first. I reverted you with edit summary explanation. Twice. I posted at your talk page. Nothing worked. What, exactly, did you want me to do to avoid disappointing you? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So GoodDay has now self-reverted.[18] And the only thing that changed in the interim was an ANI complaint. Apparently they knew they didn't stand a chance of prevailing here. That is simply bad faith editing and warrants a sanction in itself in my opinion. We simply can't keep misbehaving until a complaint is filed. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will you stop with the personal attacks, please. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA is not a suicide pact. It ain't PA if it's warranted, and any editor with 16 years should know that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted (4:54) before your report was posted (5:01) here. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you got me there. I was too busy filing this complaint to watch the article. Given the history of the issue and your UTP response, I think my error was understandable. Done, this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no malice towards you. But, if it'll lower the heat between us? I'll volunteer to stay away from the Donald Trump page & talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't harbor grudges; every day is a fresh start. The "heat" ends when the issue ends. No need to back away from the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already removed the page from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreferenced edits of Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari

I am reporting User:Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari for continuous addition of unreferenced materials.[19][20][21][22][23][24] The editor has been told many times directly in their talk page, to include reference in their edits. They don't communicate in their talk page and rarely explain their edits through the edit summary. Another editor have discussed this issue in their talkpage as well.[25]Hotwiki (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pov pushing on the tigris page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the tigris page an editor is accussing me of racism for reverting unexplained content removal. While I personally don't fully understand the exact POV being pushed, I have seen cases similar to this before and it seems to possibly be related to anti-armenian sentiment. The editor in question is User:78.174.74.155. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay I was going to give them a warning but the moment I posted this they were blocked. Should I still post the ANI noticeboard template? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE

These two recently created accounts, TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa have not contributed any edits to any Wikipedia articles, and spend their time defending the Indian government/courts in the discussions regarding the Wikipedia/ANI court case and the reaction of the community to it. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Cortador (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit to the user talk of User:Zubehamoreha, another seeming SPA, may indicate some form of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it. Looking at the report about Upd_Edit above and the ban of Djano Chained (another SPA), this seems to be a wider issue. Cortador (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Gonna suggest we also check out User:Dzień dobrry who has a similar editing pattern. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page abuse: User:Krpzy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Krpzy (talk · contribs) is abusing their talk page after block. Please revoke TPA. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pusher at Naidu

Filmpassion6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Naidu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Filmpassion6 has been persistently adding/modifying material on Naidu that consist of their original research based on unreliable sources, including Wikipedia articles, despite being clearly warned not to and having had their edits repeated reverted with edit summaries indicating the same. Their edit summaries, their comment on the talk page, and their comments on my talk page also indicate an intention for POV pushing. I do not believe that they are capable of making positive contributions, either due to their POV or an inability to understand Wikipedia's policies, hence a block may be required. Liu1126 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Judeo-Ge'ez

If you look in the edit history of the Judeo-Ge'ez article Ezra Ben Yosef is the only writer of the prose to that article. A few other editors added categories and did minor copy edits, but they didn't actually write content or add sources. This content can get really technical, so I'm just going to distill it down to the opening sentence of the lead because that opening is all that really matters to understand why this is WP:OR. The article states, "Judeo-Ge'ez (Ge'ez: የፈላሻዎች አፍ. Hebrew: יהודי אתיופי) is a historical Jewish dialect spoken by the ancient Beta Israel community that is derived from Biblical Hebrew."

In this difference at the AFD Ezra Ben Yosef is clearly saying that the content about the Judeo-Ge'ez language is supported by the sources he lists. He further states several facts in this edit:

1. "There's clear proof that the Judeo-Ge'ez language is different to Ge'ez and can be classified as a dialect."
2. "The language derives from a Herbraic source."
3. That the Beta Israel didn't speak "Agaw" and that they really speak a Cushitic language mixed with Hebrew called Judeo-Ge'ez.

These three points are basically the distilled version of the article, and they are also not supported in the sources that Ezra Ben Yosef lists. None of the sources ever use the term "Judeo-Ge'ez". This is a made-up language.

One of the main sources cited is Kaplan, Steven (2009). ""The Literature of the Beta Israel (Falasha): A Survey of a Biblical-Hebraic Tradition"".

When we look in Kaplan the author directly contradicts all three assertions made by Ezra Ben Yosef.

Kaplan writes on page 103, "Although the Beta Israel themselves claim to have once had Hebrew manuscripts and claim that examples of such texts are hidden in caves and monastaries in Ethiopia, most scholars do not believe that they ever possessed a knowledge of Hebrew. A small number of works, especially prayers, preserve word or even entire passages in the Agaw dialects once spoken by the Beta Israel."

So here we have Kaplan distilling for us in a literature overview the prevailing view that Beta Israel people had no knowledge of Hebrew, and identifying their spoken language as the Agaw language. This directly contradicts the claim of the existence of the Judeo-Ge'ez language; ie a Biblical Hebrew based language that is blended with Ge'ez that is supposedly the native language of the Beta Israel.

Kaplan then goes on to investigate the origins of Beta Israel literature and gives probably the most in-depth overview of the published scholarly lit in this field, ultimately drawing the following in his concluding remarks on page 119: Almost without exception, the sacred literature of the Beta Israel reached them through Christian channels. As has been demonstrated above in a surprisingly large amount of cases, this dependence on Christian sources can be proven through the retention of Christian terms, phrases, ideas, and names in the Beta Israel text." So basically Kaplan is saying, that the idea of Biblical Hebrew based language that connects the Beta Israel people back to the original Hebraic literature and directly to the Jewish people as their descendants is a false claim, and that their Hebrew literature came entirely from Christian sources, not Jewish ones. This is directly countering the claims of the article which is trying to use a language article to validate the historicity of a direct connection between the Jewish people and the Beta Israel people (something contested by most religious scholars and by most Jewish people). Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But politically/socially they are seen as Jews and have emigrated to Israel. Is there literature that discusses this? Is there more than Kaplan talking about this? Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Our article on Beta Israel certainly doesn't contest their Jewishness. Secretlondon (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews are Jewish, I don't think that is really up for dispute, I think it seems like Ezra Ben Yosef was trying to bolster their claims of ancient origins from Yemenite Jews which I don't think is the currently accepted historical consensus. Nobody should be disputing that Ethiopian Jews are Jews Andre🚐 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, they were officially recognized as Jewish after much debate in the 1970s, but Jewish identity and Jewish origin in this case are two different things. It's a very complex topic, and not directly related to the Judeo-Ge'ez topic (which is made up thing) which has to do with language and literature of the Beta Israel people. There's a really wonderful article here which goes into the ins and outs of the Beta Israel people and the shrowded mystery of their origins here; but this source is also very clear that most scholars believe they are of the Agaw people (see page 402). There's also the JSTOR article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24674566 which states " Academic research into the liturgical music of the Beta Israel suggests that they formed as a group under the influence of Ethiopian Christian monasticism in the fourteenth." In general the prevailing scholarly position is they developed from Christian groups at the time. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

See here, Ezra removed something [26] that appears to be accurate, adding someting unsourced here [27], and here changing the conclusions of the article to support the idea that Ethiopian Jews were Middle Eastern[28] and here [29] Andre🚐 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a very contentious area to edit in because the outside scholarly work contradicts the Beta Israel community's oral history and myths about their origins. So fundamentally, the scholarly academic work may upset people from within the community because the historicity of the oral tradition is not accepted in the academic literature as being true. This is one reason why we see so much edit warring in that article. FYI, I am not a contributor to that page and don't plan on being because its likely to be a place of conflict, and with continuinng WP:POV and WP:OR issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Aksum

So it looks like Ezra Ben Yosef has been edit warring at Kingdom of Aksum with editors complaining he is introducing WP:OR. Looks like WP:3RR could be applied. I don't know whether it is OR or not because I haven't read the lit on this one but here are the edits: Reversion 1, Reversion 2, Reversion 3 Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Dustfreeworld and CIR

The aforementioned username:

• believes that others linking policies to them is vandalism,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADustfreeworld&diff=1252277372&oldid=1252276097 ES

• believes that it is inappropriate for experienced editors to send them warning templates,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADustfreeworld&diff=1252285615&oldid=1252285101

• preassumes incompetency I hope people can do some basic research,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252273709

• drags on issues (especially in the case of the topic ban, where the editor did have a right to have the discussion reopened),

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1248110819

• doesn’t take the effort to understand policies (when they link numerous policies themself),

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1245659975 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252186545

• is against collaboration in numerous forms,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1244278039 (waited by edit-warring until the other user created a talk page message, when they could have just done it themself) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1223141686 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1241187286 (everything in the blue block)

• likes to own articles,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=1250023023#Hey,

• respects and admires people who can correct their mistakes,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1248110819

• yet sees their own mistakes as difference in opinion,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1222337976 (in the case of NPOV) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1244280753 (everything in blue block)

• uses ES to attack other editors,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1244387015 (editor was dispute with the other on IsraelHamas war and suicide articles)

• disregards replies with excuses that they are too long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karnataka&diff=prev&oldid=1244269909 (especially when their own messages are very long)

It’s also weird how Dustfreeworld blanked both their user page and talk page wanting some privacy for forthcoming edits as if they knew the dispute currently on the talk page would happen.

I’ll mention those involved: @Dustfreeworld @Hiobazard @Kingsif @Karnataka @Adolphus79 @ScottishFinnishRadish @Jannatulbaqi @WhatamIdoing 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:E5C3:B700:ED2A:2E22 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A comment on my talk page has been linked above. I have a very different interpretation of the comment, and I suggest disregarding this IP's claim that it's a sign of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

I also respect and admire people who can correct their mistakes, and especially the editors who can publicly admit that they've changed their minds instead of doubling down on their original mistakes. For example, the alleged "ES" isn't an WP:ES, so maybe you'd like to go correct your error. (It's an HTML comment.) While we're on the subject of that point, I'll add that I was raised to believe that telling someone to shut up is not a polite way to communicate a wish for a conversation to end, but it's not actually a WP:Personal attack, and I suspect that quite a number of editors cheerfully use that phrase without thinking themselves to be behaving rudely, much less violating our Wikipedia:Civility policy. If it were, we'd have a bigger problem, because that phrase appears in significantly more than 10,000 discussions on wiki.

The only edits from this IP address are to post this here. I wonder which content dispute this logged-out editor is trying to gain an advantage in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to show the ES, not the HTML comment. The ES shows the reason why the shut up HTML comment was added, in reference to a user. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:60B7:4D35:8B6C:93FB (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this IP is also me the OP, I should have clarified it but I didn't know that the IP would change. I did not care about the "shut up" in the HTML or the ES, or anywhere in general (hence I didn't bring up https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1252101002), but rather the content that follows in the ES only. Especially the harassment accusation through the "forgetful" link. However what I would like to bring up in that diff I just posted is the editor's unwillingness to discuss their edits. Dustfreeworld states that BOLD is a lie to children, but it isn't if one is willing to explain your edits instead of where I quote "throw uppercase" to editors who then revert. During a content dispute with another editor who reminded the user of importance of discussion through BRD, the response completely ignored the point https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1239933205 showing how the editor is incompetent to judge when using BRD-is-optional arguments are appropriate.

I'm sure that almost everyone appreciates people who can correct their mistake. The editor is highly appreciative when things go according to plan https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChirpy-slirpy-BURPY&diff=1247861443&oldid=1247579736 like shown. But when this doesn't happen allegations of blanking begin to appear https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1244258719 after a first revert of a revert https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1243854852.

As I showed in my original post, the editor calls "uppercase" vandalism. The following edits are a selection of edits with ES that has 3+ Wikispace links. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Pui&diff=prev&oldid=1244257726 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1243854852 (an example of viewing their own mistake as difference in opinion). An editor has wanted to distance themselves from the editor that I have brought here due to the https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1247717981 aggressive and obsessive response to other editors that the editor gives. Notably through the Wikispace linking that the editor themselves have called vandalism. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:391E:173F:4FCD:20A4 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming that a note posted by this editor, on their User: page, that doesn't mention you or anything about you, is a message to you. I think that's unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I really want to get my point across that the ES was targeted towards a specific editor, I’ll clarify. The ES was They want you to shut up. Whether it’s about war, about suicide, about PRESERVE, maybe even racism/inclusion, whatever. They want you to shut up. So you should. How forgetful I am. and I’ll focus on the bolded parts of this.

Firstly, They. The editor is clearly referencing someone/a group of people.

Secondly, war/suicide/PRESERVE. The editor had a dispute with User:Karnataka against all three issues (Israel-Hamas war, various suicide articles, and a Preseve policy). https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karnataka&diff=prev&oldid=1244267146

Thridly, the racism/inclusion. I’ve also bolded the maybe as I was unable to find an occurrence of this, so I’m guessing that the editor was presumptive about the intentions of Karnataka.

Finally the attack in the form of the “forgetful” hyperlink. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• You are right WhatamIdoing,

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adolphus79&diff=prev&oldid=1153898457 2A01:B747:412:344:D444:3B76:D8E5:AA37 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an unrelated comment on my talk page has anything to do with the editor in question, and have purposely stayed uninvolved in this conversation due to my recent interaction with them. I would like to clarify, though, that in my diff'd comment, I was not telling John M Wolfson to shut up, I was acknowledging his "sit in the corner away from the mop" statement. That being said, regarding the WP:OWN complaint, I would like to point out this edit, including the statement "Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either."... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Would an admin or experienced user please assess if this report above violates WP:A/I/PIA (by mentioning 2 diffs from discussions about the topic)?

Additionally, I would very much like to know how you, IP, came across these interactions, seeing as you have not clarified who you are and I do not see any obvious related edits in your /40 and /32 ranges (the /64 range is empty, but that's common).

So that I'm not an hypocrite: I edit from my entire /32 range, where 99% of the edits are mine, except for, I believe, less than 10. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that "rv" does not mean "revert vandalism". It just means "revert". "rvv", with two V's, means "revert vandalism". See Wikipedia:Glossary § R. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware? (OP again) 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Then why do you think that Special:Diff/1252277372 indicates that Dustfreeworld thinks that Special:Diff/1252276097 was vandalism? jlwoodwa (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is a reference to this edit, calling my note about WP:OWN "vandalising my talk page with WP:UPPERCASE". - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Some editors feel strongly about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and our WP:UPPERCASE jargon (please click that link if you've never read that page) can be off-putting. We use it as a way of signalling that I'm in the in-group (and probably you're an outsider), as a way to avoid thinking and explaining clearly, and as a way of trying to "win" disputes. I wouldn't call it vandalism myself, because I have a pretty narrow understanding of that word, but if it's upsetting, even if you believe it "shouldn't" be upsetting, then it's best to find a different way to say what you mean.

I don't know if you're familiar with Postel's law, but following the general principle on wiki is helpful: Editors who want to communicate successfully should avoid communication styles that are objected to often enough that you wouldn't be surprised if someone complained (e.g., no profanity, not because we have a firm rule against it, but because you have real things to communicate, and you don't need your real point ignored while we have yet another discussion about whether profanity is always a blockable offense or only sometimes a blockable offense. [It's the latter, by the way]), and if someone indicates a less common but still workable communication preference, then respect that as much as feasible (e.g., to the extent that you remember this preference and have functional alternatives). If you happened to become aware of someone's dislike for the WP:UPPERCASE style of communication, then it'd be nice if you could avoid that. But, of course, if you don't know that, or if you happen to forget, then that needs to be okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference here is that Dustfreeworld’s handling is highly hypocritical. You will find WP links in almost every one of the Dustfreeworld’s talk page messages and many of ES, so how is it vandalism when it’s done only towards Dustfreeworld? As Dustfreeworld is consistently using WP links, surely they are actively indicating that the best way to communicate with them is also with WP links.

By WP links I am referring to the UPPERCASE. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That was my understanding also. Considering how many WP shortcuts Dustfreeworld throws around, in almost every message they post, I assumed that they were part of said 'in crowd' and responded in kind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

2A02:6B67, I regret that I must apparently be the one to break the unfortunate news to you, but: humans are not perfect. And Wikipedia editors are humans.

Complaining about ordinary human beings – with their ordinary human frailties, faults, and self-contradictions – is not the intended purpose of this noticeboard. Admins have no tools to make humans be perfect, and if we banned everyone who made an occasional mistake, or who discovered that they didn't like a particular behavior once the shoe is on the other foot, there would be nobody left to write articles.

While we're here, may I invite you to go to Special:CreateAccount and register an account? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The specific issue I have brought to ANI is civility and a potential CIR issue, not baseless complaints without any diffs at all. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B19C:D275:9885:CEE7 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am here because I was pinged by the OP. I am not experienced enough to sling around a lot of WP:(whatever) policy quotations, but did want to leave my opinion here.

The editor mentioned by the OP has already received a broad ban from editing medical topics, which is clear evidence of prior repeated problem behavior. They came to my notice because of the Joss paper article, which had some errors in correctly paraphrasing at least one source (primary, actually,) as well as blank section headings and references which strongly implied significant health issues existed, etc., without proper sources or even any actual text at all. After some back-and-forth reversions, I discovered the medical topic ban and reminded the editor thereof. In the process, I came across numerous edits and talk page postings that persist in the same pattern of incorrectly citing policy and using dozens of allcap WP: links to basically smother disagreement.

Succinctly, the editor in question has a history of tendentious editing - just looking at the Joss paper editing and the username shows a likely problem with NPOV. There is a further unwillingness to engage properly in generating consensus; accurate complaints about problem behaviors/edits are met with hundreds of words quoting dozens of often inapplicable policies, or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.

Wikipedia has a lot of rules, for reasons, but I am a firm believer that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, full genome sequencing may be unnecessary in determining which of the Anseriformes it is. This is clearly a problem editor.

I was going to link to a diff of the ~15:00UTC OCT 20 post by @Adolphus79 on the problem editor's talk page, but it's now in a purple box of some sort that I am too inexperienced to manipulate properly; I agree with it wholeheartedly. Hiobazard (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hiobazard: This edit? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly; thank you.Hiobazard (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

hi, I'm here because I was invited on my talk page. I don't have a good history with Dustfreeworld - we had some issues in multiple articles and I essentially wrote what I wanted to say to him in a long reply. I've attached the last edit made to the discussion before I removed it from my talk page Special:Diff/1244386082 and even though I was quite harsh I didn't know how to counter the WP:PA, WP:HOUND and the repetitive WP:PRESERVE argument that Dustfreeworld sent to me (and he was not using properly - see also links instead of content) to the point where I had to use shortcuts which is something I rarely do. — Karnataka 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the OP is someone with whom I have content dispute recently, thought that they have lost, holding a grudge, and post as IP in order to evade boomerang. They also hope that pinging others (who also have content disputes with me before) to this discussion can increase their chance of “winning”. There are much representations in the diffs they posted, many of them are either aged or tangentially-related. They posted those diffs in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs involving other editors (aside from Adolphus79) were only about content dispute discussions that had either died or already been resolved. There are too many misrepresentations that would need much efforts to debunk. Anyway please see the new section below. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may quote myself: 'or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.' The lack of self-awareness here seems profound. Hiobazard (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, @Hiobazard. FYI, almost all the 16 diffs posted by the IP are misrepresentations that are either cherry picked or quoted out of context, in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers; not to mention the 20 links to policies and essays with untrue claims that Adolphus79 posted on my talk page. Even if I can find the time to respond to all the 36 instances, I’m afraid that I don’t know how to, because most are misrepresentations that are not talking about what the issues really are (e.g., it’s like someone pointing at a dog and asks you do you like cats). If someone is determined, it won't be too difficult to cherry pick 16 diffs out of an editor's thousands of edits.

I have never heard that “don’t have time” is something that the community disallow voluntary editors to say. I have heard that wasting the community’s time *is* a problem. If I may ask, how many times are you going to quote yourself? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I have been following this thread and I think that it s unreasonable to complain about the links to policies and essays that @Adolphus79 when you use them a lot too for example with my edits and WP:PRESERVE. you didn't care about my response and linked another essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read at special:diff/1244269909 where the second paragraph in that essay says "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing", which is exactly what you did by not even responding to my point - that sometimes revert/removal is the only option. I also did my job and did inform you of the removals at Talk pages, but you chose not to rea-dd the images or dispute the removal and accused me of trying to "WIN"? — Karnataka 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that it’s nothing wrong to link to policies and essays. That helps facilitating discussions. However, I don’t think linking 20 of them in one single comment (like the other user did) is an appropriate use. That’s absolutely not something I will, or have ever, do or done.

Re Tldr, I linked to it in response to your preceding comment (last sentence) that “I do hope that you read the entirety of this reply.” I interpreted that as you thought your comment were too long for me to read. But, that said, I can be wrong and there could have been misunderstanding or language barrier. I don’t think it’s true that I didn’t care about your response. I didn’t reply or edited the article further because I was conforming to the tban (which IMO not aligning quite right). Plus, since I decided that I would let go and unwatch that article, I just didn’t feel the need to response further (I won’t / can’t edit that article anymore why should I continue a content dispute with you?). Also, from our interactions I had the impression that you had dug deep into my contribs / talk page and should have known about my restrictions, so I was annoyed when I was pushed to response while I really couldn’t. That said, again, there might be misunderstanding and I might have misunderstood. If you are unhappy about my notion about WIN, I’m more than happy to retract that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld Sure I don’t really mind about retraction because what’s said has been said. I added that because it was the first time that I remember writing a long comment like that and didn’t want my efforts to be wasted but your response to my reply clearly showed that you dismissed it (certainly not a misunderstanding), calling it a “time sink”, and I did quote what the essay said about this in the link above. — Karnataka 14:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld But I’m confused because none of the topics we had dispute on were related to medical topics… I don’t know how Israel-Hamas war and David Pui could ever be linked to medicine (suicide could be somewhat medical-related but you rea-dded the topic on my talk page after my Israel-Hamas war article reversions so I don’t see that as a valid excuse) — Karnataka 14:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

While I’ve already said my linking to an essay isn’t a “tactic” as said, I don’t think my comment above is “excuse” either. To be frank, as those content disputes were weeks or even months ago, I don’t think our memories serve perfectly and I don’t think I can clearly figure out where the misunderstandings are. Can we just be more friendly and collaborative and AGF? I do believe we did AGF, as I remember I have made an edit summary that has earned a thank from you not so long ago. It’s really not worth our/ the community’s efforts/time to dig up those dead discussions/ content disputes again just because someone pinged you here because they hold a grudge against me ... I hope you understand that. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I don't think they were misunderstandings, and I do hold my reservations about this entire thing but I think it would be best if I just stopped replying here as our main editing topics are completely different and it isn't the best idea to keep dragging this, even though I don't think that this was resolved. I'll monitor this for outcome like what Hiobazard said he'll do too, but this was an experience and I don't think I'll comment here further unless I'm brought up again as you have suggested since it will be the best for both of us. thank you — Karnataka 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

(EC) After 4 days, you haven't had time to make a single comment regarding the content of the original report against you, but have had enough time to file two additional retaliatory "reports" attacking me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I’m still studying the 36 links and pages. That said, I believe that even if I did make a single comment regarding one of the thirty six misrepresentations, it will not be enough to debunk it, and, there are still thirty five left (and, I won’t be surprised if someone continues to add more.) I figured that I’d better spend my time in filing two reports stating the true claims about the misbehaviours of an editor so that everyone can know and understand them. By the way, you declared that you are not the OP, who would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?

PS. I don’t think my reports that written based on facts “attack” you. I hope that comment is not another attack against me. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Baselessly accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock, and filing 2 retaliatory reports against me trying to deflect from your own report, those are personal attacks. It also further proves the points made by the OP IP and every other commentor. BTW, me calling you out on your obvious personal attacks against me is not a personal attack itself, so please drop that stick also. This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements, but instead you are using it to attack others and only furthering the case against you. I'm not sure what you think you are going to "debunk" by continuing the same course-of-action that got you here, but you had better hurry before this report gets closed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I repeat: “you declared that you are not the OP, why would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?” It’s a query, not attack.

And again: “I don’t think my reports that written based on facts ‘attack’ you. I hope that comment is not another attack against me.”

• Report 1
• Report 2
• This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements ... you had better hurry before this report gets closed.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note: I had already responded to both of these "reports", 3 days prior to this comment... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

“There is no reason for me to make any further comments. CalGon, take me away!” - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [30]

Yes, we all know how trustworthy you are. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Just because I ended one conversation with you, means I am not allowed to make other edits elsewhere now? How very hypocritical of you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what do you mean by “elsewhere” as we are talking about this same discussion thread.

Aside, I’ve never said that I won’t make further comments here (even in the diff that you linked to); it’s *you* who said so. Please stop making comments like ”How very hypocritical of you” on other editors. I believe that kind of comments can get you blocked. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, OP again. I pinged every user who I planned to add a diff from and adding a talk page notice to Karnataka (as I had to describe a dispute regarding you and them to WAID), including SandyGeorgia and WAID who you supposedly have good relations with so they can all see the ANI. I recognise that you don't know them, but you also supposedly have a few supporters https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252453886 in which several users who have a high edit count are mentioned. Unlike described below, I am not using a VPN and even though I seem to have multiple VPNs they are all from the same area. I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:19A5:EA39:9B52:10CC (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why you are pinging so many people here. Sometimes you implied that I was having disputes with some editors, and then later you said I have “good relations” with some of them. I hope your pings have nothing to do with this (quote: “When notifying other editors of discussions ... don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions.”). I don’t know why “my relations with other editors” are relevant to this discussion (unless people are trying to telll those who disagree with your untrue claims, or those who agree with my edits, not to post here). I’ll never be able to know your relations with other editors, as you are not disclosing who you are. Again, people who are seeing this please also see the new section below. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m OP, like I just said I didn’t preselect based on opinion I just pinged everyone who I planned to link diffs to. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, is this yet another accusation that I am the OP IP? You just don't know when to stop attacking others, do you? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think I have mentioned you in that comment of mine.

• You just don't know when to stop attacking others, do you?

I see that as an attack towards me. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

RE to the IP's I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous

Which of the legitimate uses of sock accounts (in this case IPs) are you operating under?

It certainly seems hard to scrutinize your edits, as is expected when you comment on this board, when you have hidden your edits by editing while logged out - there's certainly good reasons for us wanting to be sure that you are not also involved in any of these or related discussions as another IP range or account.

Please address these concerns. – user in this /32, currently 2804:F1...58:A5F8 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I declare it's not me, I don't know squat about domains or proxies or VPNs or whatever, which is why I always edit logged in cuz I'm stuck on the same redneck POS DSL I've been using since 2009... also, I know how to spell 'behavior' and 'apologize'... (haha) - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:UOWN indicates a user may delete anything they want from their userpage.

I see nothing wrong with diffs of his user pages that are deletion of content. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have had encounters with DustFreeworld previously as well. I believe their edits are, for the most part, those of an advocacy group rather than encyclopaedic. It's quite obvious they're here on a focused mission to bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia. Many of their edits are not encyclopaedic and are akin to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOXing. They put the same content in many articles, use live articles as sandboxes and drafts, spam their images that fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, add irrelevant content and twist the narrative to push for their clean air advocacy. It's an admirable advocacy, don't get me wrong, but it's not encyclopaedia building. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

OP here. Thanks for your input, I’d really appreciate it if you could also include some diffs so we can all see the nature of the edits by the editor. I included diffs from the other editors above in my original post but I didn’t come across this scenario, although the username Dustfreeworld does paint a picture for a start. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

=== User:Adolphus79 and aspersions/ attacks ===

On 20 Oct, at the end of a content dispute, Adolphus79 posted a comment on my talk with twenty Wikipedia UPPERCASE policies shortcut https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 They added profanity to my talk page, which is a type of vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 (”Shit on” twice (e.g., "gets shit on like I did")) Potential aspersions, even during this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1253734154 ("How very hypocritical of you") Failed to assume good faith and cast potential personal attack https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252171189 (“am done playing your silly games.”) Again, failed to assume good faith and removed the peace message with appologies that I posted on their talk page with an ABF edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adolphus79&diff=prev&oldid=1252279683 (with ES: “revert bad faith ‘peace’ message...”) All these refute the above accusations and explain why I removed their problematic posts (which were posted after the discussion was closed) on my talk. There are probably more diffs, but I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang possible sanctions. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Excuse me, are you openly accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock on AN/I? Anyone that knows me knows better than that. Could I please request an admin checkuser to verify that's not me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Please kindly note my use of words “it *seems* to me”. While I’m won’t oppose a checkuser procedure, I’m not sure if it can identity all users who are using VPN, proxies, etc. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC) WRT “Anyone that knows me”, I thought I “know” you too when I said on your talk page that “you are a reasonable person”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "enough for a boomerang" implies you believe this will WP:BOOMERANG on me, implying that I am the OP. Accusing me of sockpuppetry. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Again, “Please kindly note my use of words ‘it *seems* to me’”. Having doubts doesn’t mean PA (as you have linked to). Please AGF. That said, I won’t mind if you change the word boomerang into “sanction”. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Nah, I'm gonna let your completely unfounded statement of "I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang" stand fully on it's own, especially after our recent interaction, I'm done... checkuser, please! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC) I hope “your completely unfounded statement” isn’t an accusation against me. I hope the diffs I posted above can be looked into by ... someone (checkuser or whatever?) too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC) That edit summary cements it. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC) I just want to make this clear, if I was going to report Dustfreeworld, I would have reported them, myself, immediately after our conversation on their talk page. And I would have reported only our interaction, I wouldn't have needed any other evidence from their past transgressions. I am (mostly) proud of my edit history, and would also want those edits to count towards my account. The fact that Dustfreeworld refused to comment on a single aspect of the report though, deciding instead to single me out and openly attack me without a single piece of evidence, says volumes about their behavior in regard to the original report. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC) I do want to know why you aren’t commenting on my report about you, with all claims supported by diffs as evidence. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Evidence of what? That I used UPPERCASE just like you do? Or that I lost my cool? I've already apologized for saying a bad word (which, BTW, is mentioned 10 times on AN/I right at this moment outside of this thread), after you had tried to bully me for 2 days straight. Or do you want me to apologize for removing a message from my own talk page that was obviously left in bad faith considering your two edits on either side of that one being continuing to bully and attack me on your talk page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC) I don’t think what you said about me is true. Again, please calm down, and don’t take it personal. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC) What did I say about you that you don't think is true? I'm confused? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC) DFW, I think this post does you a disservice. It seems to support the above assertions that you cite and misapply policy you don't understand. I'm not sure what policy you're alleging was violated with your first diff, as WP:UPPERCASE is an essay, not a guideline. The second diff does indeed show some profanity... which is not inherently forbidden, and is CERTAINLY not vandalism. The third diff is the closest to what you say, but I can't say I blame Adolphus for getting heated. It's not great, but it's not the smoking gun you seem to think. The last diff is something that, again, would be better to avoid, but really doesn't seem something that would warrant sanctions, especially as it was removing a message form their own talk page. The above thread also doesn't impress. "it seems to me" is not a get out of jail free card to imply whatever you like. If we're in a content dispute, and I said, "Oh man, there's this really bad editor I've had a dispute with. Their username starts with D, but that's all I'll say", you'd be right to accuse me of WP:NPA even though I didn't explicitly say it. You often tell people to WP:AGF, but per WP:PACT, that has limits. Also, note that checkusers don't connect accounts with IPs, and even if they did, WP:CHECKME explicitly forbids it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. Hmm, I think I’m not the one who suggested the checkuser procedure. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC) If ever asked, I would have happily apologized for the naughty word, but it was not directed at the editor themselves, and its nothing worse that you hear on broadcast TV anymore. @Dustfreeworld, I'm sorry that I was so weary of our conversation that I said a naughty word in my final message to you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Add one more example of “sh*t on” https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 (perhaps “describing something as shitting on them” is not sanctionable, but I believe describing an editor as “continue wanting to shit on them” is) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Since we now know that no one is going to do anything about this report, what's the point of adding a redundant (second) complaint about what you've already complained about above ("he said it twice")? - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

CIR and User:Adolphus79

• Misunderstood WP:NBASIC, which is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), and wrongly think that it’s used to decide article content (while in fact it’s used to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252136646 (and failed to admit that they are wrong even after the policy has been clearly explained to them “You are citing WP:NBASIC, which is a section of WP:Notability (people), but have you read the very first part of it? On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.”)

• After other’s patient explanation, they continue to misinterpret policies such as WP:N, saying that it’s used to determine “how the person is notable enough for inclusion”, while the guideline actually says, “The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article”. Instead of admitting their mistakes, they chose to post warning template and more Uppercase, etc. on my talk page later on
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustfreeworld (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Dustfreeworld: I think you're misrepresenting the context for the first diff. Yes, WP:NBASIC doesn't usually decide article content, but when you add a non-notable person to a section titled "Notable journalists" it definitely applies (per WP:LISTPEOPLE). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  jlwoodwa, please kindly note that the page you linked to (WP:LISTPEOPLE) is a section of the page Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. At the top of the page it says, “Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list.” I think that guideline is for stand-alone “list articles” only (but not the article in question which also has other content). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:LISTBIO, which applies policies like WP:DUE to embedded lists. I don't see any discussion on the talk page making a case that it's due weight, and it's up to you to convince others it should be there, not them to convince you it shouldn't. But we're getting into the weeds here. I think it's clear that Adolphus, whether mistaken or correct, had reasonable cause for their interpretation. Even if mistaken, I don't know of any policy that requires someone to admit that they are wrong. Rather, an essay seems to suggest the opposite. It's okay to have been mistaken, and laudable to learn from it and become more correct in the future. I suggest you drop what looks like a retaliatory filing; I think it is only working against you at this point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  If Dustfreeworld had simply provided additional sources that showed the person in question was in fact notable for inclusion in a "notable person" section, anything other than "he died", with barely a mention of his name in a news article about someone else, I would have happily rescinded my opposition. Instead, they told me to find more sources to prove their point, that ONUS didn't apply to them, and tried to bully me to get their way (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM trumps all P&G, WP:NOBLANK says I can't revert their changes, etc.). I never implied UNDUE, never said "he can't be included", I only tried to point out that Dustfreeworld was adding a "notable persons" section with a single occupant, without providing any signs of what the person was "notable" for (other than "he died"). I was genuinely hoping that Dustfreeworld would find the additional information, come back and add the individual again with some source that showed he was an award-winning journalist, that he had published a book, anything that showed a hint of passing notability concerns; instead, I had WP shortcuts thrown at me that Dustfreeworld obviously hadn't read before citing, was bullied, and continue to have attacks lobbed at me even now. All because I asked for more than "he is notable because he died". - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @EducatedRedneck, again, thank you for the comment. Yes, it’s good to apologise, and that’s what I’ve done. Although it was described as “bad faith” by the other user.

  I think it’s normal for editors to have different opinions/ interpretations on policies. I’m totally fine with that. No, I didn’t ask for their apologies. I just hoped that people can cool down a bit instead of throwing twenty policy shortcuts at me and adding profanity (e.g., “sh*t *n”) to my talk page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think that any chance of reducing the recalcitrance and wikilawyering by this problem editor via discussion or consensus building is close to zero. Every rational argument, or reiteration thereof, is just met by delay and another (incorrect, typically) reference to policy with no admission or recognition of their consistently problematic and tendentious actions. @ScottishFinnishRadish: is a well-respected editor and administrator who has already been closely involved with this editor's problem behavior in the past and may be able to put this to bed - one way or the other. Other than monitoring for outcome, I won't be commenting further. Hiobazard (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - This discussion is going nowhere fast. I submit all of the above as evidence, and move that this report be closed as Dustfreeworld has failed multiple aspects of WP:NOTHERE, and shows no signs of future improvement. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support what? - I submit all of the above as evidence, and move that this report be closed as Adolphus79 has failed multiple aspects of WP:NOTHERE, casting aspersions failed CIR and shows no signs of future improvement? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So you learned a new WP shortcut, and once again want to show that you failed to read it before citing it. WP:ASPERSIONS "is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". What did I accuse you of that you didn't do openly with plenty of evidence? Also, the original report is not about me, so why would it be closed with a comment about me? Unless you are once again accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, Wikilawyering again? Thanks for teaching me new WP shortcut. I’m always happy to learn new things. FYI, misrepresentations aren’t evidence. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm done... I do not believe you are incompetent, I believe you are simply NOTHERE. You know HOW to edit just fine, but your disdain for any comments not strictly following your "interpretation" of the P&G means you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. There is no reason for me to make any further comments. CalGon, take me away! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m done too. Thank you.

P.S. For the record, I had waited for almost two days for your reply about the discussion (Indoor air quality) you initiated on my talk page before I blanked the page for privacy [31] [32] (for my forth-coming edits at another unrelated article Asian News International). You were more than welcome to comment on that discussion to correct my “disdain”, although you didn’t. Instead you chose to comment/follow my edits to the unrelated ANI article and start another content dispute with me (with grudges?) ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply to Hiobazard. I’m glad that you have removed that ABF comment (which says “any further interaction with Dustfreeworld here will likely be useless”) Thank you.

I suppose by “wikilawyering” you mean the linking of 20 policies or essays in one single comment by Adolphus79? For the record, you didn’t reply to my (only) comment on Sep 27, which was a response to the discussion you started on my talk. I left the discussion opened until Oct 17before it’s closed. I don’t think that not responding to comment, and then, thought that they had lost the discussion and holding a grudge, later (when pinged) accusing another editor with claims like “consistently problematic and tendentious actions”, is a good example of consensus building or collaborative editing ...Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Request 31 h block for Dustfreeworld Regretfully, DFW doesn't seem to be getting the message that they need to disengage and perhaps reevaluate their interpretation of policy. The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. It's only DFW's response, including two retaliatory filings and several personal attacks in this thread, which changed my mind.

Discussion has not seemed to change DFW's mind, and they have passed up several opportunities in this thread to let the matter drop. If this were closed with a warning, I suspect DFW would avoid this specific conflict, yet would continue to misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation). I hope a short block would convince them to consider others when they disagree with their novel policy interpretations rather than continue to edit disruptively based on them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

”The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. “ Thank you.

Aside, you said my filings convinced you there was a problem. Can you tell us more? Do you think Adolphus79’s accusing me of being “silly”, “shit on them” or explicitly failed to assume good faith (supported by their ES) when removing my message to seek peace on their talk, etc., were what convinced you? Or, do you think that citing/misrepresenting policies which were irrelevant to the situation under discussion (we were talking about embedded list, but the policies that Adolphus79 linked to were about stand-alone lists) repeatedly , was what convinced you?

PS. I urge you to retract your potential aspersion “misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation)” and "edit disruptively". That edit of mine has been standing for over a month. I don’t think the editors who have been watching that page will agree with your potential aspersion. I don't think an edit of mine telling editors to follow our editing policy is "disruptive" (if you really think so, I would start to wonder if it's a sign of WP:NOTHERE). BTW, please kindly note that it seems to me that you are making a no-edit order to tell others not to edit that page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This response is an excellent example of why I think there's a problem. I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve. Hiobazard seemed to be correct that discussion is not productive. I'll give it one last shot anyway. Why do I think some sanctions are needed?

You're harping on Adolphus instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring), implying that Adolphus describing something as shitting on them is somehow sanctionable, asking leading and argumentative questions that seem designed to score points rather than gain understanding (WP:BATTLEGROUND), claimed that a criticism of your behavior on a behavioral board was a potential aspersion yet somehow not realized that you're doing exactly the same thing. And claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE is particularly rich.

You also either missed the point (WP:CIR) or deliberately avoided it (WP:IDHT) regarding the essay. Consider: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM which you tout and linked to states fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. (Emphasis mine) Your edit read Always follow the editing policy and revert only when necessary which both gives the impression that one must ALWAYS fix the problem, and also the impression that your interpretation, which is not supported by the policy page, is ironclad. That is deceptive and disruptive.

Finally, if you really don't see the difference between "you shouldn't change an essay to reflect an interpretation that has no consensus" and "don't edit that article", then that's on you. Your claim of "I didn't refute that point" also doesn't convince me that you understood the problem. And your Tu quoque of "Well if you believe that then you have to fix this other article" doesn't strike the zinger of a point you seem to think it does. In fact, it shows you still don't understand the policy. Only one entry would be removed from that list; the rest have their own articles, and therefore meet WP:LISTBIO.

It doesn't seem that discussion will be fruitful, so like Adolphus, I'm going to sit back and see what other editors think. I was originally trying to get this resolved without sanctions, and if no admin is convinced by this, perhaps that's what'll happen. I just expect we'll end up back here soon enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother... After 8 days, it's obvious no one is going to do anything. They are just going to ignore this, letting it get archived without any action. Dustfreeworld seems to enjoy impunity here (check the archives), free to carry on their behavior with a new set of WP shortcuts to misuse when they bully their next victim... - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck,

”I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve.” Because you can’t win the discussion?

”That is deceptive and disruptive.” So you are determined to join Adolphus79’s smear campaign?

What’s the problem to tell editors to “always follow the editing policy”, with a link to the policy in which it says “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.”?

The link was added so that editors can click on it and read the policy themselves, read that line “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't” and follow it. How “deceptive and disruptive” can that be? That is aspersion.

You are linking to at least six WP shortcuts (i.e., wikilawyering), misinterpreting/ misrepresenting my edit, failed to assume good faith, escalating disputes, in an attempt to remove an editor. You're harping on me instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring). Your comment is making it obvious that you are WP:NOTHERE.

Aside, the person I added to the ANI article was well sourced. I did provide more sources on my talk page to support that upon query. Even if, I say if, someone really thinks that entry isn’t notable enough, removing the whole section outright (which Adolphus79 had done) is *not* following “tag or excise them if you can't [fix them]”. This further shows that how common editors misinterpret our ES and that my edit to BRD is essential. (FYI, that section of the ANI article needs *expansion*, I can’t do it because I was dragged here. They should do that. You should do that. But you decided to escalate here. Another proof that you are nothere.)

That said, let me repeat: this is not the right place to discuss policies or article content, unless you are nothere and want to use that to remove another editor, which you are trying to do now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I didn’t refute to your comment on WP:LISTBIO because a) I don’t think this is the right place for policy discussion, b) I want to avoid battles in discussions, which is exactly complying to WP:BATTLEGROUNDS. But that doesn’t mean I agree with you on that. As I’ve said, “I think it’s normal for editors to have different opinions/ interpretations on policies. I’m totally fine with that.” (but I don't think I will ever cast aspersions on editors because of that) I suggest you reread. (BTW, if you still insist that I my interpretations of policy are “novel”, I suggest you edit this article and remove this whole section. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, are you sure 31h is enough, considering the editor regularly takes 2 or 3 days between editing? - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, how long do you think your block should be, for a continual smear campaign like this one? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I didn't post that retaliatory report, I didn't baselessly accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, and I didn't show how oblivious I am to the P&G (or that I haven't even read the WP shortcuts that I do use). - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is telling us that you won’t stop that campaign of yours.

Are you sure how to respond to these?

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Adolphus79 and aspersions/ attacks
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CIR and User:Adolphus79

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I give up, you make Wikipedia not fun anymore. I am tired of your attacks, your harassment, your complete lack of couth. You haven't made a single edit in the last week that wasn't attacking me in some way, and I genuinely hope someone puts an end to this before I just leave the project for good. You win, I'm the worst editor in the history of the project. Now, please, leave me the fuck alone. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - Sorry, don't want to upset the babies... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - we all know no one is going to stop this, 6 days of this BS without a single word from an admin about your behavior or actions just reminds me how unwelcome I am around here... you win, you can say whatever you want about me, they won't stop you, I should've known better than wander out of mainspace... I hope you figure out who the OP is one day, to focus all your misdirected hate on them instead... I'm going back to my corner... thanks for nothing ANI... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs) for one week for casting aspersions, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record:

The OP (and all the related IPs) who filed this ANI complaint is now blocked (CheckUser block):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:0:0:0:0/64

User:Karnataka officially warned for engaging in sock puppetry [33], "The only reason that you're not currently blocked is because I didn't notice it until now, and blocks aren't supposed to be punitive."

More information can be found on my talk page (perm link)

In this discussion I was described as a “very hypocritical bad faith incompetent deceptive editor who sh*t on others”, and then was blocked with reasons: “persistently making disruptive edits, casting aspersions, wikilawyering, showing classic WP:TE”

Sorry I really can’t accept/admit these claims. If the blocking admin wants to sustain them, I’m opened to further discussion with concrete diffs provided for each claim.

I’m not going to hold people who made untrue claims about me accountable, I still believe those are just misunderstandings; but I believe this discussion should be closed/archived with the significant additional information (OP blocked a user warned for sock puppetry) mentioned, and with the right conclusion.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Closure request

Proposed closing statement: “OP rangeblocked for a month (CheckUser block).” --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oddly specific targeted vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do admins have the ability to block the word "Ponyo" on January 8–10, 2024 North American storm complex? There's someone who appears to have a grudge against User:Ponyo hopping IPs while editing that article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just a sock, exposing their IP addresses that will inevitably be blocked for longer and longer periods. Not very clever, and WP:RBI works.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, short of an edit filter I don't think that's possible, but I did restore the protection that expired earlier today. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Would one of you two be kind enough to mark this as closed? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lovemuhcko and IDHT

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

As shown on their talk page, Lovemuhcko (who began editing in 2019 and became more active in 2023) has recently showed issues with IDHT and competence:

• Moving an unfinished stubby draft to mainspace: [34]
• Removing stub tags from obvious stubs despite warnings from two other users: Special:Diff/1251968647
• Adding unsourced content (to BLPs) despite a warning in March: Special:Diff/1251250442, Special:Diff/1251250325, Special:Diff/1251250172
• WP:NOTBROKEN violations despite a previous warning at User_talk:Dekimasu#Any_a_favor?: Discussion here

While they are sometimes good at giving me ideas on what articles to create, they have still continued their disruptive behavior despite being warned that this could get them blocked, so I'm concerned they're WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with this project. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So I not edits for in the future and I will limit these edits anymore and please not been blocked or banned to edits and still continue to editing will to limited from now. Lovemuhcko (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lovemuhcko: I don't think promising to restrict your edits is enough here. The general issue here is that you've repeatedly ignored people's concerns about your editing, so there's a substantial chance that it might later spill over to other areas on this project, leaving us with more work to clean up afterwards. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember this editor. My first encounter to them was on April 2023 when they removed the Stub tag on Madoka Asahina article without an explanation. I restored the tag, explaining that the article was currently assessed as Stub, and warned them on their talk page. Since then, I restored the Stub tags that they removed from other articles, to the point I got exhausted and just removed those articles from my watchlist or just started ignoring them even if I know what they did was wrong. It seems that their editing involving Stub tag removal doesn't stop, with recent being this week. I hope this ANI will get the editor's attention: they can expand the Stub articles instead before removing the template. Centcom08 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-archive update

After this thread was archived as inactive, they returned to editing and continued removing stub tags from obvious stubs (Special:Diff/1256464176, Special:Diff/1256464167), both of which I've reverted. I'm unarchiving it due to concerns about their behavior. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them from mainspace due to the resumption of the same problematic editing despite a promise above. I also question whether they have the English language skills to edit here, but they're welcome to use draftspace. Star Mississippi 01:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, a stub is an article too short and incomplete to provide more than rudimentary information. When I look at The Case Book of Arne, I see an article that should be assessed as "Start" rather than "Stub". Take a look at the article, which has nine sentences of prose and six references. Then, take a look at how Wikipedia:Content assessment describes stubs and start articles, and explain to me how this article is a stub? I see far more than "rudimentary information". So, why is is removing the stub tag being held against this editor? Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That one is more borderline than Murder Mystery of the Dead which is a clearly wrong de-tagging IMO. Personally I'd have left Arne as a stub but I also don't think this editor has the experience to be assessing article quality. That said, zero objection to you or any other editor lifting the block if you think it was wrong @Cullen328. I'm about to log off so please don't wait on me for any action. Star Mississippi 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I do not object to the block from mainspace because the editor's contributions clearly have some significant competence issues. What I've done is upgrade The Case Book of Arne to start. This editor can demonstrate competence through well-referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Some competence issues are intractable. On the other hand, "English language skills" is an area where serious effort, study and ongoing day-to-day experience can accomplish wonders, although it takes time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Long-term problem at Robert Hale Merriman

Since April, someone editing from the IP range 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 (talk · contribs) has been making large, unsourced additions to the page Robert Hale Merriman, totalling more than 500 edits. They've been reverted and warned by about a dozen different other editors over those seven months and are not taking the hint. Indeed, at no point in that time have they so much as acknowledged any of those warnings, posted anything to any talk page, or given a single edit summary. I believe a pageblock for that IP range is warranted and appropriate at this point, given the failure of reverts and warnings to have any effect, the long timescale, and the fact that the problem emanates neatly from one /64 block. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A block against an IP range is usually enacted as a temporary solution. I think a short-term range block is in order while making a request for page protection. Peaceray (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A /64 IPv6 range is usually equivalent to a single IPv4 address and can be treated as such. The first half of the IPv6 address usually identifies the device, while the second half often varies randomly. So blocking a single /64, unlike a wider range block that could affect multiple users, would be preferable to having the whole page be protected. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern about page protection as a solution is that this person is clearly incredibly persistent and I can't imagine anything except very long term page protection being effective against them, and that seems like an outcome it would be preferable to avoid.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing long-term partial blocks against IP ranges used in the past - am I misremembering? It seems like the risk involved is quite low; the chances of another, uninvolved user having an address in the same /64 and wanting to edit that one specific article are small enough. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

. I am new to adminship (about ten days ago) & have never done a range block or a for a specific article. Perhaps someone at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks can help Peaceray (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant to congratulate you on your election!

Anyway, @Drmies has just protected the page for a month. I've added it to my watchlist too. If they return after expiration of the protection, I suppose this can be revisited. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here: just block. Peaceray, if you go to the IP's talk page and click "block", it automatically gives you the option to block the /64. Then again--the ONLY time someone ever said anything about the IP's edits was when Casiopea said "unsourced". User:AntiDionysius, I appreciate what you are doing here, but I don't see where you explained your reverts, or left a talk page message, or talked to them--clearly they are interested in the topic and don't know how we operate, so maybe you can explain that. So, Peaceray, hold off on blocking, if you don't mind--I semi-protected, but we're here at ANI like we're dealing with some terrorist vandal, which we are not. User:Chaotic Enby, judging from the history there's no other IPs really interested in editing the article, so I semi-protected, which has the same effect for us, but doesn't kick the IP editor in the shins. One of you, PLEASE talk to the IP editor, on their most recent talk page, and explain, without a template, what they are doing wrong and how they could do it right. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't leave them a talk page message this time was because it seemed like such messages had proved ineffective for whatever reason. I have left messages before, and then watched them make more such edits from the exact same IP a few minutes later. But I'll try again - as you say, without a template this time. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Try on the article talk page too, just in case. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Good plan, thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partially blocked (from Robert Hale Merriman). I have partially blocked 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 from editing Robert Hale Merriman for a period of six months. Peaceray (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! @Drmies, sorry for implying that blocking the IP editor was necessarily the better choice. My comment really had the technical aspect in mind (of one /64 range being equivalent to a single user/device, except in very rare technical cases), and I didn't think to check whether the IP user had been warned before. Happy to see that AntiDionysius left a message since!

The issue with IPv6 is that, since a user's potential addresses are distributed along a /64 range, there isn't a single talk page on which we can have a consistent conversation with them. I believe the idea of /64 talkpages has been considered by MediaWiki, but I'm not sure how far in development this is for now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Chaotic Enby, I hear you--I usually just pick the most recent one, knowing that it might not always do the trick. But if someone has been doing it for so long, I kind of would have expected a number of talk pages with notes/warnings. Preferably notes since it seems that the editor was trying to contribute. Perhaps the block notice will prompt them into looking at a talk page; I'll try to click on the range a few times in the next few days just to see if they said something. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Good news – temporary accounts will be coming to the English Wikipedia soon(ish), and one of their effects will be that anonymous editors using IPv6 connections have much stabler identities (including, but not limited to, their talkpages). jlwoodwa (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: Intitally posted on AN, now moved to ANI at 16 November 17:18

I'm currently dealing with a ridiculous situation in which an editor is supposedly propagating their own wishes of what Wikipedia policy should be, demanding that I abide by it, refusing to acknowledge actual Wikipedia policy guidelines, and what very clearly appears to be playing dumb to elicit frustration.

This is the relevant t/p discussion and here I laid out a comprehensive case on why the figure at hand objectively as per Wikipedia policy does not constitute a low profile figure on the basis that they have actively sought media attention, giving interviews in which they themselves claimed to have been engaged in criminal activites. These interviews were detailed in length in The Globe and Mail and CTV and various other Indian news outlets, which I explained on that talk page. I also explained there was extensive media coverage surronding the figure in question dating back at least January 2023, fulfilling another requriement of WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

Simonm223 posted on my talk page alleging that in order to write about accusations or charges laid against a person not yet convicted of a crime (aka where the person may have been arrested and charged but the case had not yet get gone to trial or a conviction in the trial was pending) , I first needed to establish that the person was notable independent of any reports of accusations of wrongdoing or alleged criminal activity. I repeatedly asked Simonm223 to provide me a policy page or quotes from a policy page which backed that up, but was met with radio silence each time. Instead of doing so, he just threw out various accusations of IDHT, despite that fact that I had provided 2 key elements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (extensive coverage from reliable sources) and WP:LOWPROFILE (figure in question seeking out media attention), whereas he did not provide any relevant quote.

I also detailed examples where we do indeed name and detail accusations/charges against a person who had not been convicted of a crime; on my talk page, I brought up how we named Derek Chauvin and the charges laid against him in the George Floyd page a few months after the page was created, despite the fact that he was a private citizen, not yet convicted of the crime at that time, who did not attain any notability outside of the killing. In a high profile case like that with thousands of editors, naming Chauvin and the charges against him would have required overwhelming consenus, thereby demonstrably disproving Simonm's claims. A look at 2024 murders in the US shows numerous pages in which a person, who obviously did not attain notability independent of their crime, are named, described as suspects in a criminal act, and have their background exhaustively detailed. A poigant example would be-this case in which a conviction is pending. It cannot be that all of Wikipedia is wrong and violating BLPCRIME on a regular basis and Simonm is unilaterally correct.

Both on my t/p and the article talk page, Simonm repeated these claims Absolutely not. As I mentioned at arbitration enforcement and at your user talk page it is a direct contravention of WP:BLPCRIME to put content up on Wikipedia that indicates a non-WP:PUBLICFIGURE is suspected of crimes for which they have not been convicted. Furthermore, as detailed at arbitration enforcement, one cannot be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE simply for having been accused of a crime. Based on these two statements we should leave out anything that would imply that any person associated with Hardeep Singh Nijjar is accused of crimes until such time as they stand trial or they become a politician, celebrity or other independently well-known person. despite the fact that the policy in WP:BLPCRIME is contingent on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE and nowhere does it say in WP:PUBLICFIGURE that someone cannot become a "public figure" solely through criminal activity which has not yet secured a conviction. Literally nowhere.

After I demonstrably proved how the figure in question did in fact receive extensive media coverage for years and objectively cannot be considered a low profile figure, Simonm then claimed I gave you the policy in question. Your response is a text wall that boils down to "they do it on other pages" which is not a compelling point on Wikipedia. Lots of stuff happens on other pages that shouldn't.

I don't believe Simonm is acting in good faith here, he seems to be knowingly ignoring the policy I'm citing, he's repeatedly spouting off nonexistent policy and not backing it up despite multiple requests and demanding that I just abide by his own personal preferences. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Globe report-"(Arsh Dalla) Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book."

CTV report-Speaking to CTV News, Ritesh Lakhi, a well-connected independent journalist in India, says Dalla is “a very prominent player, as far as organized crime in the north state of Punjab.” ... Lakhi says that during previous conversations with Dalla, he even admitted his role in some of the murders, telling CTV News that Dalla “would simply call me up. I did a few interviews with him, and he would tell me why he killed this person. We've been watching his activities for the last three and a half years.” Lakhi goes on to add that in some cases in India, “there are certain gangsters who’ve been designated as terrorists, and Arsh Dalla happens to be one of them.” Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This undeniably proves that Dalla actively sought out media attention, thus making him a high profile person. Simonm ignored that on the t/p and instead claimed I only invoked OSE, which is egregiously insulting and disruptive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Two things:

1. this is the wrong noticeboard for what you are trying to do.
2. If you take a content dispute to the noticeboard that takes these sorts of complaints when there's already literally two arbitration enforcement cases about the same issue and against a person who has literally just said "we don't accuse plumbers from surrey of being gangsters on Wikipedia pages about alleged known associates," (like I literally haven't even done any edits to the page, you just don't like what I said about Wikipedia policy at article talk) you're going to catch a boomerang for these antics. Could an admin please close this thread?

Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, this is well beyond a content dispute- you're spouting off non existent Wikipedia policy and refusing to back them up despite multiple requests, consistently and knowingly ignoring me providing actual Wikipedia policy elements and backing them up, making hurtful accusations against me claiming a paragraph in which I highlighted numerous sources and policies was merely "other stuff exists" which is an egregious violation of decency and clearly intended to frustrate me, and gaslighting me by claiming that I'm the one who's ill-informed (you first lobbed the IDHT insult against me-[35]).

This is clearly not a content dispute, but a competence is required and IDHT problem on your part.

The fact that you cannot even address any of the claims I made above regarding WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:LOWPROFILE, either here on the article's t/p or on my t/p is telling. I engaged with you respectfully in the very beginning and was willing to have a conversation based on policy, but all you've done is make petty insults against me, insult my intelligence, demanded that I abide by your personal interpretation and preferences of Wiki policy, lied about what a policy section states, and ridiculed my arguments and brazenly straw manned them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant background: I filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against Southasianhistorian8 on November 14 due to conduct issues in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topic area (specifically Sikh topics). Simonm223 provided a statement as an uninvolved editor to that AE request,[36] then attempted to engage SAH on their user talk page.[37] This interaction ended with Simonm223 adding to his AE statement, saying "Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset."[38]

SAH appears in that interaction to try to WP:BADGER Simonm223 into agreement with walls of text, both on their user talk page and at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar, despite Simonm223 only wanting to keep the discussion at the user talk.[39]

This filing appears to be lashing out at Simonm223 for not agreeing with them. This is in-line with SAH filing a retaliatory AE request against me 7-hours after the one against them.[40]

Both the retaliatory AE request and this AN filing demonstrate both a clear non-understanding of WP:IDHT and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing in this topic area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins, GhostofDanGurney has a very long history of making hasty, ill researched claims about me, in a previous A/E, he falsely accused me of plagiarizing his work, ScottishFinnishRadish concluded that Ghost made inflammatory edit summaries against me and others and engaged in a tendentious interpretation of a primary source, he also falsely claimed I edit warred citing a grand total of one revert, and has now been told by 2 admins that his reports at A/E are based on content disputes. He's literally throwing anything and everything on the wall, hoping something sticks. I urge admins to look at Ghost's egregious conduct for themselves.

Now he's claiming that I badgered Simonm23 on their user talk page, which again is a straight up lie, the only post I made on Simonm's t/p is the notification for this AN post. Simonm also first stated that he wanted to relegate the discussion to my t/p then 9 minutes later posted on the article's t/p despite that fact that I never pinged or initiated a discussion with him there. So again, a brazen lie from Ghost.

This is also clear tag-teaming from 2 editors who clearly are on each other's side.

Nonetheless, there are severe issues about Simonm's conduct, and I urge admins not to fall for tricks that are intended to digress and take attention away from that. These conduct issues laid out here specifically pertaining to Simonm's conduct on my t/p and article t/p deserve to be addressed. 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This is straight up bullying now-[41] and the lack of self-awareness and brazen tag teaming is bewildering. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

156.146.153.231

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nearly all edits of 156.146.153.231 (talk · contribs) were reverted. Plenty of warnings, was blocked for 31h. Time to take a closer look. --Altenmann >talk 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible block evasion by sockpuppet User:MaralagoPawn

• Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 blocked for 1 month for block evasion by Special:Contributions/Meellk (still blocked) on 9 October 2024 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Possible_block_evasion_by_83.6.206.183
• Special:Contributions/MaralagoPawn created on 9 November 2024, immediately proceeds to continue same pattern of edits on Poland -- Svito3 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm negating these accusations. This is my first account on Wikipedia. I have run over sources and what's in them on several pages already, such as Angela Merkel. The sources listed for Poland being a semi-presidential system simply don't match up, except for 1. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  How would new Wikipedia user use same arguments that WP:Consensus is a math equasion/vote and doesn't involve consensus building?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1249401895

  https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Poland&diff=prev&oldid=1257166072

  Not to mention specifically describing one source as outdated and pushing Encyklopedia PWN source e.g. "Polish source". It's unlikely. Svito3 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this user does look like yet another sockpuppet of Urabura/Galehautt. All accounts ran by this person sooner or later come to the Poland article and get into an edit war over some detail in it. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also of note is that, rather conveniently, an anon recently appeared and made the exact same kind of edits to various pages related to Poland – including, you guessed it, semi-presidential -> parliamentary on Politics of Poland, with the edit summary stating "removed outdated/faulty sources". Very similar to what MaralagoPawn stated on their edits related to Poland.

  I will not jump to conclusions, but this looks suspicious. LVDP01 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  That anon is me. Just aligning with the Poland page. It's permitted to not be logged in at all times. Instead of calling me names, acknowledge the sources' faultiness. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Um? I just went over the source listed on the Polish wikipedia (where the system of the country is described as parliamentary) and, as any reasonable editor, checked out the discussion on Talk. And after revising the sources placed on the page, I found all of them except for 1 to be faulty. I had to remove them. Is anything abnormal? I'm trying to stick to the rules as a new user. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ardyjofry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ardyjofry, who was recently blocked for a week for vandalism, has in recent days been repeatedly posting the same unsuitable article to mainspace. I originally draftified the article as it was blank, which they rejected by returning it to mainspace but did not actually improve it, merely adding two sentences copied from another article. I nominated for CSD, User:Pppery changed it to a redirect, all fine until they then deleted the redirect and replaced it with the same bad content, necessitating a full lock be put on the redirect. They then proceeded to vandalise my userpage, which was honestly not that big a deal so I simply left a warning and carried on, but today they posted a hoax article and then left a very low-effort personal attack on their talk page in response to me.

I think at this point, whilst not a clear-cut vandal for AIV, they are very clearly not getting it and it's probably worth another block.

CoconutOctopus talk 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MxLoko apparently WP:NOTHERE and engaging in personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:MxLoko is an account created on October 20 that, as of this writing, has made 35 edits. Of those, 25 are on two talk pages involving soccer-related articles and another five are either to the user’s own user page and talk page. (The other five edits are substantive edits to soccer-related articles.) The user's talk page contributions consist primarily of constantly repeating the same talking points to complain when other users are not agreeing with proposed edits. Let me add that I have no idea what this person is talking about regarding "exposing" a group of three or four users and their alleged "methods" (whatever those are), although it sounds vaguely like a threat to me.

diff 1

diff 2 basically says the same thing

diff 3 repeats it again

diff 4 then says the same thing again

I firmly believe MxLoko is displaying WP:NOTHERE behavior by refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and by repeating the same talking point about "exposing methods" over and over again.

MxLoko has also engaged in personal attacks on me in edit summaries and on the user's user page and talk page, as follows:

Original version of the user page—take note of what it says at the end and take note of the edit summary. WP:ES very clearly states, quote, "As with any other Wikipedia space, do not express opinions of other users in edit summaries." MxLoko very clearly violated that. The system, of course, notified me about it and I demanded that the personal attack be removed from the user page. Another user took care of that. In response, MxLoko very disingenuously claimed there was no personal attack—obviously a ludicrous claim—and essentially expressed an intent to continue the behavior. The user then revised the user page to retain the attack without mentioning me by name, although the new personal attack is wrong because I wasn’t born in 1995 (I’m not going to divulge my exact age except to say I’m well over 40 years old).

I have no problem with a user disagreeing with me. That happens all the time. But under no circumstances am I willing to tolerate a user engaging in personal attacks against me on the person's own user page. The user's claim that there was no personal attack is irrelevant. WP:NPA very clearly says, quote, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (Emphasis in original.) MxLoko's claim to have believed that I was a "fan" does not pass what is sometimes called the "straight-face" or "laugh" test—no reasonable person could make that claim while keeping a straight face. 1995hoo (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw the block show up and I tried to delete this report so as not to waste anyone’s time, but you beat me to it. Have a nice weekend. 1995hoo (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and disruptive behavior from Lgnxz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For some context on the situation, on November 9, User:Lgnxz began a large-scale removal of the term "J-31" from the Shenyang J-35 article on the grounds that it was a "misnomer" (see this group of 14 edits). While this assessment is partially true in the case of the prototype, which is officially designated FC-31 and was sometimes called "J-31" by western media, this does not extend to at least one enlarged variant of the aircraft promoted by manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and the Chinese state media known as the "J-31B". I confronted Lgnxz about this misconception on November 10, but Lgnxz repeatedly insisted that the video released by the aircraft's manufacturer, promoted by the Chinese media, and heavily analyzed by western media was somehow a mistake, citing nothing but WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and the fallacious argument that the revelation of the J-35 designation disproves the existence of the enlarged J-31B which had already been confirmed by Chinese state media ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]). I repeatedly asked for reliable sources confirming that the J-31B and J-35 were the same variant, but only got more WP:OR and claims that that the sources were already in the article (I was unable to find any such sources in the article). On top of that, Lgnxz dropped several personal attacks, first calling me an "avid wikipedia fundamentalist" and then saying that I was "clearly unwell". After I warned them about the second attack, they responded with this confusing, dare I say trolling comment.

Earlier today, an IP removed sourced information about the J-31B from the article. I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them, to which they responded that "your paranoia would be very amusing for months to come". Given the repeated WP:IDNHT behavior and personal attacks, I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ZLEA, this is clearly primarily a content dispute. Has this been discussed on the article talk page? Can you provide a link to any discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz This is primarily about the attacks and the disruptive behavior, not the dispute itself. I included details about the dispute as it gives context to the actual problem. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them" And what would be your reason for accusing me? A baseless prejudice of course, given that despite the clear personal difference between us, I didn't do any petty vandalism or edit war in the J-35 page with you or any other people on any page, nor do I want to 'troll' you by extending this overextended topic any longer; I've said what I need to say about the J-31B. It just seems very ironic how you're accusing me for being 'disruptive' given how you try to accuse me without evidence that I use different IP to 'stealth edit' the J-31B section from the J-35, and with further attempt to escalate the matter to an Admin. Lgnxz (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you didn't want an escalation, you should have stopped your personal attacks at the final warning, or better yet never made any attacks to begin with. I also made no accusations of sockpuppetry, I only asked if you were the IP based on a reasonable suspicion (not "baseless prejudice") since the IP performed an edit similar to one you made only a few days ago. It wouldn't have been the first time I caught such sockpuppetry, especially after the original account had supposedly dropped the subject. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Editing while logged out can be considered sockpuppetry if used inappropriately. If it was you, please don't do it again."

That sounds pretty accusatory to me. But please, keep bringing this up personally to me and about me instead of having a talk page in the J-35 page on the J-31B as mentioned by the admin. That'll truly show how disruptive and escalatory I am instead of vice versa, right? Lgnxz (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to have such a discussion on the article's talk page, but not with someone who throws around personal attacks as freely as you have these last few days. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Lgnxz and ZLEA, if everyone can agree on no personal attacks or passive aggressive comments, can this discussion move to the article talk page? I've found when two editors are in a dispute like this, it really helps to get other knowledgeable editors to participate in the discussion so it's not a "me vs. you" situation. How about we try to move forward? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can agree to that. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And you, Lgnxz? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure Lgnxz (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Then go forth and discuss! With civility. And I hope not to see a return trip to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gorabels147

Hello, I'd like to report Gorabels147. This edit alone warrants a permaban. Every contribution they have made is tagged as being reverted. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You might want to take it here instead. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants to move the thread there I won't object, but they haven't had a 4th vandalism warning recently (which the page requires) so I assumed it'd just get closed (or sent here!). OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-talk page vandalism?

I haven't encountered an instance of anyone vandalizing their own talk page before (without having been blocked with TPA), but 216.138.20.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has achieved that dubious honor. I frankly do not know if this kind of activity is prohibited, which is why I haven't issued any warnings as yet. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing and TPA revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Thank you. In the future, can this kind of thing just be reported to AIV instead? JJP_Master (she/they) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this fits within the definition of vandalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Zlillyann might be this IP's registered account so keep an eye on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought the same; their userpage was already on my watchlist. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Thekz Cos

This user keeps moving pages from the sandbox to the Wikipedia namespace. They have been warned twice on the talk page but continue to do so. Annh07 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In User talk:Thekz Cos § October 2024 they responded to the warning with noted. Since then, they've moved six more drafts to the Wikipedia namespace:

• Special:Redirect/logid/165534378: Nov 2, Wikipedia:Marko Podgornik Verdev
• Special:Redirect/logid/165577025: Nov 4, Wikipedia:Jordy Kool (Entrepreneur)
• Special:Redirect/logid/165595808: Nov 5, Wikipedia:Dr. Heiko Visarius (Medtech Expert,Board Member, Moderator)
• Special:Redirect/logid/165666334: Nov 8, Wikipedia:Outlook Travel Magazine
• Special:Redirect/logid/165726593: Nov 11, Wikipedia:Laurence Kemball-Cook
• Special:Redirect/logid/165814944: Nov 15, Wikipedia:Lab Interior GmbH

jlwoodwa (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

What's going on? Thekz Cos (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the matter regarding the movement of drafts to the Wikipedia namespace. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this process and its compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and broader legal considerations.

The migration of drafts to the Wikipedia namespace is a standard practice and fully aligns with Wikipedia’s purpose of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. The following points address your concerns and provide context:

1. Legal and Community Compliance Wikipedia operates under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) and GFDL licenses. These licenses explicitly allow the sharing, modifying, and publishing of content, provided proper attribution is maintained. Moving drafts to the main namespace does not violate these licenses as it remains within the scope of Wikipedia's content-sharing policies.
2. Editorial Review and Process The drafts moved to the Wikipedia namespace are subject to Wikipedia’s robust editorial processes, including community oversight and adherence to notability and sourcing guidelines. This ensures the integrity and quality of the articles, maintaining the platform’s credibility and mission.
3. Transparency and Traceability The edits and actions, including draft movements, are transparently logged in the platform's history. This allows the community to review and discuss any concerns openly. The action of moving drafts reflects consensus-driven contributions rather than unilateral decisions.
4. Encouraging Collaboration Moving a draft to the main namespace often signifies its readiness for broader community input. This step is critical to engaging a diverse editor base for improving, expanding, and refining the content collaboratively.

If you have specific concerns about a particular draft or process, I’m more than willing to discuss further and address any issues. I am confident that all actions taken align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and legal framework. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The concern is the particular process: you're moving pages to the Wikipedia namespace, not to the main namespace. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the concern regarding the process of moving drafts to the Wikipedia namespace instead of the main namespace. I understand the importance of adhering to proper workflows and ensuring that all actions align with community norms.

The movement of pages to the Wikipedia namespace is typically used for internal pages or supplementary content that supports the encyclopedia's infrastructure, such as policies, guidelines, and administrative tools. If my actions of moving drafts to this namespace are perceived as inappropriate or inconsistent with its intended purpose, I sincerely apologize for the confusion caused.

That said, I would like to provide clarification:

1. Intent of the Moves The decision to move drafts to the Wikipedia namespace was made to allow further collaboration, refinement, or discussion among editors before publishing in the main namespace. It is not my intention to misuse the Wikipedia namespace or disrupt its purpose.
2. Corrective Steps Moving forward, I will ensure that drafts, once ready, are moved directly to the main namespace unless there is a specific, community-approved reason to do otherwise. If any of the drafts currently in the Wikipedia namespace need reassignment, I am open to addressing them promptly.
3. Community Consultation I am happy to discuss this process with the appropriate editors or administrators to ensure alignment with community guidelines. Constructive feedback will help refine my understanding and adherence to the expected standards.

If there is a specific protocol or workflow I should follow for such cases, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. My goal remains to contribute positively and in accordance with Wikipedia’s best practices.

Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to resolving this matter collaboratively. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Jlwoodwa. Also there are currently 18 pages in the Wikipedia namespace: [49]. Annh07 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the text of what is now Draft:Marko Podgornik Verdev, I have concerns that there may be paid editing going on here that has not been disclosed. —C.Fred (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I mention on every page that these are paid contributions. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. Draft talk:Outlook Publishing Ltd, for example, does contain the required paid-contributions disclosure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can I move these pages to the mainspace with the paid contribution disclosure? Thekz Cos (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  No. None of them are suitable for mainspace at the moment; they are unsourced, poorly-sourced or sourced to primary sources, and much of the language is promotional. If they are moved to mainspace they would be deleted very quickly. You will need to fix the problems with them and present them through the WP:AFCREVIEW process. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Thekz Cos Not only is you moving the pages a violation of WP:Conflict of interest, but having to clean up messes like User:Thekz Cos/sandbox/Laurence Kemball-Cook → Laurence Kemball-Cook → Draft:Laurence Kemball-Cook is also a drain on administrative resources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  If Thekz Cos could respond without copy and pasting a large AI-generated spiel this time we might make some progress here. Right now I believe we've only received two, short, human responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Pickersgill-Cunliffe They do at least seem to be more responsive than the typical paid editor. They've undone their mistakes as best they could, and they made the paid editing disclosure in the first place. I'm willing to give a little benefit of the doubt with the AI response—I used AI to refine an email in the workplace recently, and I'm a native English speaker. I think the immediate concern on pages going into Wikipedia: space is solved; I don't think immediate administrative actions are needed, but at the same time, it's probably worth peeking in on their contributions from time to time and making sure they're moving in the right direction. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there is any admin action here it should be to block based on incompetence. Thekz Cos, understand what people are saying and respond in your own words. You are being paid for your competence rather than an LLM's incompetence. And the description above of why you moved these to Wikipedia space almost exactly matches our use of Draft space. You were told, and agreed, to use it back in August. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger And now they're moving pages out of Draft: space back to their user space. I just gave a {{uw-move4}} warning and strongly suggested they not move any more pages without asking for assistance. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  User partially blocked from moving pages for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindu News

Ther are legal and physical threats over at RSn being made (apparently) by representatives of Hindu News [[50]], 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 [[51]] 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 [52] [53] - 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 [54] 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 [55] 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)

How about buildings with windows? But yes, bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored there, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 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 [56]. - 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[57] as the IPs of hindu rashtra dal did on the talkpage of Kolkata rape incident. [58][59][60] Making legal threats on the same page also led to your block.[61] 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)

The only partially veiled threats of violence are among the most alarming things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Don't worry -- it's really just these guys [62]. EEng 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll just mention this related ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SumoAvocado is seeking to intimidate a long term admin. The editor who came to my user talk page asked me not just to remove this discussion (and other discussions of Hindu News) but to revision delete all edits that made up the discussion. That account has been blocked. But I have the feeling that they will be back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am kind of wondering if it would be wise to advise the WMF of the threats of physical violence that have occurred within this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it would. It would also be a good idea to inform them that various people feel empowered to make such threats by the WMF's seeming willingness to roll over in the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation case. I'm sure we'll see much more of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is the any more than this we can actually do, just be vigilant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

These accounts should be globally locked, to make it clear that we don't tolerate any of this anywhere on Wikimedia. I submitted a few on m:Steward requests/Global. Yann (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) 47.31.186.213 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we have another. At this stage just socking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No edits outside of the ENWP. Just re-report if those blocked accounts have activity on other projects. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks, edit war in contentious topic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Special:GoToComment/c-CmsrNgubane-20241115171700-Manyareasexpert-20241115135300 personal attacks - Your responses are clearly emotional, you refuse to accept the reality, This is a classic display of cognitive dissonance, your bias really blind you this much

Some kind of threats? I really wanted to avoid being aggressive but it seems this is the only language you'll will understand. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit war: adds contested content [63] , pushes it with edit war [64] claiming "vandalism", again [65] , adds [66] WP:TASS, removes [67] no relevance tag. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocked indefinitely from BRICS, as this seems to be the main locus of the disruptive editing. However, looking back through their contributions, I'm not sure if this will be enough to stop the disruption. I'm considering this a normal admin block, though it does seem to arguably fall under CTOP/EE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, you might consider extending this partial block to Talk:BRICS as this is where personal attacks are happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what happens when he next edits. If anyone sees the need to broaden the block before then, I don't mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for losing my temper yesterday, I think I was frustrated that nobody was willing to hear my point of view, nonetheless I admit now that I went out of line with some of my responses and I deeply regret that. I just want to appeal directly to you to reverse the block as I am deeply passionate about the BRICS project and I believe I can contribute a lot to the article for years to come.

Best wishes CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to express my deepest of apologies, I regret losing my composure in that manner. CmsrNgubane (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

After taking time to think about this clearly, I've decided to withdraw my request to be unblocked because I know that I will end up in another battle because I do not cower to any man , I fight for what I believe in and do so feverishly and it's a trait of mine that I am proud of, therefore I will not change my personality for anonymous people on Wikipedia and if this statement that I've just made earns me a total block then I am prepared for that, infact I've just realised that I've been wasting precious time guarding articles for what reason actually?, it's been good being part of the community for awhile but it's now time for me dedicate my free time on endeavours that actually pay money. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also noting edit-warring at Cape independence with bizarre summaries. Borgenland (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning sir, I just want to take this time to clarify the contentions on the Cape independence article, I believe that it is correct to classify the group as a separatist organisation since it seeks to break apart from South Africa, furthermore I would like to inequivacally stress that none of my edits are made with the intentions of disrupting, I make the edits based on approved citations, I have recently developed a passion for editing and I want to help contribute to making Wikipedia better for the reader.

Kind regards CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything I said is true and factual, you are just soft as hell, yes this is a personal attack, now go cry to Mommy and Daddy and tell them to block me completely. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Request granted. Sitewide indef block. —C.Fred (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CmsrNgubane. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please also block the range of obvious IP socks editing BRICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I protected the page to start with. Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats

User:TomW1212 making legal threats after being warned on their talk page - see diff. CoconutOctopus talk 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked for vandalism indefinitely so probably safe to close this! CoconutOctopus talk 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked this person's talk page access. It is crystal clear that their intent is malicious. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

They clearly have no actual connection to the person in question, and their edits are blatantly deliberately trolling and disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Jolly J" Fennimore making accusations of criminal activity

"Jolly J" Fennimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making various claims of criminal activity on Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project (diff). These accusations apparently originate with him (not from the press or government) and certainly fall afoul of WP:BLP. He appears to be editing primarily to publicize these allegations (see edit summary here of I added several serious crimes that have occurred during the restoration of the Cut-Off. I have many more still to add. I have become an investigative journalist and have a newspaper with stories related to this (and exposing [person]) coming out early 2025. While his edits cite some sources, they don't support 90% of the screed, including all of the criminal allegations. His talk page comments here and here indicate a total lack of why his editing is inappropriate. I unfortunately did not leave an edit warring notice until after my second revert and his third of the day, but given these allegations, I think admin action may be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you claim I didn't cite my sources? "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You claim falsely that 90% of what I wrote is not supported. You pulled this percentage out of thin air. Nonetheless, if you do not believe that 90% is supported- Why did you remove 100%? Is being an investigative journalist and being on Wikipedia non-compatible? I could cite many more sources and add much more, but then the page would be a mile long. If you need me to clarify or give more substantiation- let me know where you need more clarification and more citations and they will be added. All I know is my work on Wikipedia was deleted and you did so claiming that I didn't cite sources. Like I said, if you can point out what I didn't cite, I will add citations and if they aren't readily available, I will remove those sections for a day, before I can find them in my notes. I am a fairly easy-going person, there is no reason to bother administrators, they do enough work already. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@"Jolly J" Fennimore: Most of what you added is improper synthesis: you improperly drew your own conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the sources you cited. Please also read WP:RGW: we are not a place to post new investigative journalism, only a place where things that have already been reported by a independent reliable source can be given their due weight, not more not less. If your goal here is to make new reports of misconduct, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for it. Remember, the people you are mentioning are living, so we must be very careful about what we say about them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also edit-warring going on here. I've warned the editor (who has now been warned twice) but they might cross the 3RR line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I am still fairly new here and still don't know why anybody is talking about "War"? I didn't start any war. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@"Jolly J" Fennimore: Edit warring is not a war per se but has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Please refer to that link. Essentially, you were repeatedly reinserting content when others have shown their opposition by taking it back out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely pageblocked "Jolly J" Fennimore from Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project due to violations of our policies regarding biographies of living people, no original research and edit warring. The editor is free to make well-referenced, policy compliant edit requests at Talk: Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems behavioral issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am making this report because I recently found this post (found by searching up the username of the user in question), where the suspicious editing patterns of this user was brought up in a similarly contentious article with another user complaining about the exact same patterns of hostility and dogpiling: [68]. This report was made through the lens of someone involved in the article 15.ai, so if anyone who was involved in the maintenance of the article Yasuke could chime in, that would be very much appreciated.

The user User:BrocadeRiverPoems has demonstrated a clear pattern of editing that prioritizes ideological alignment over adherence to Wikipedia's core policies, including neutrality, reliable sourcing, and civility. In multiple contentious discussions, such as those surrounding the articles on Yasuke and 15.ai, has engaged in aggressive and accusatory behavior that discourages meaningful collaboration among editors. Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives ([69], [70], [71]). These actions have not only disrupted the editing process but have also led to a hostile environment on talk pages, alienating other contributors and stalling productive dialogue ("I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1). Anyone who dares to disagree with this user are met with harsh accusations and hounding, and despite being a relatively new user to Wikipedia themselves, the user is happy to scrutinize the editing patterns of anyone who isn't active on Wikipedia 24/7 ("With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1; "It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article." from the same page, "Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article"). (see: the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems). Hypocritcally, they consistently spend a great deal of time and effort dissecting the verbiage of every editor that disagrees with them down to every individual word, but are also happy to offer circumstantial evidence to support their argument, such as accusations of off-wiki coordination ("The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing", "Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus.", "Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the WP:DRN and the continued edit warring by User:RocketKnightX and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from User:HackerKnownAs, I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard." from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. and "See Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai. [...] This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination." despite my insistence that I have never participated in off-wiki manipulation). For example, they stress that they have "pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them", and yet were happy to make edits that unashamedly violate WP:YESPOV like [72], which I had to edit (before my edit was eventually reverted).

Several people have been affected by this user's hostile behavior, myself included ("I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back." from this very thread). Their confrontational approach to editing and discussion has created an intimidating atmosphere that discourages constructive dialogue ("As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit.") and the condescending attitude towards those who take breaks in between editing Wikipedia (" Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again.") does not help at all, and violates WP:DEADLINE. For instance, in my interactions with them, I was met with accusatory language and baseless claims of single-purpose editing, despite my efforts to engage respectfully and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Other editors have similarly expressed frustration with this user’s tendency to dismiss opposing views outright and escalate disagreements into personal attacks or relentless scrutiny of editing patterns.

Furthermore, it was brought to my attention in Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 that this user possibly belongs to a Discord server that has been allegedly coordinating off-wiki efforts to influence the content and direction of certain articles for months, including 15.ai. This raises serious concerns about violations of Wikipedia’s policy on COI and potential breaches of neutrality and good faith editing, especially with IP users like 180.129.92.142 suddenly coming out of the woodwork and virulently attacking me and throwing several serious accusations at me.

To summarize, editors have expressed that the user in question has violated the following Wikipedia policies:

• WP:GOODFAITH
  • "You've crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns"
  • Made accusations about single-purpose editing without evidence
  • Claimed "The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing"
• WP:CIVIL
  • Made hostile and condescending responses that led one user to say "I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back"
  • Created an environment on multiple discussion pages where editors felt their contributions were viewed with suspicion just because they took breaks or haven't contributed to Wikipedia as much as the editor in question
• WP:HOUND
  • Followed and criticized specific editors' break patterns: "With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
  • Continuously questioned others' editing motives
• WP:DEADLINE
  • Criticized editors for taking breaks: "you made few edits after you assessed the article and then you left for 6 months"
  • Used breaks as evidence of suspicious behavior: "returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
  • Questioned legitimacy of contributions based on activity patterns
• WP:NPOV
  • Made edits that blatantly violate WP:NPOV (e.g. [73])
  • Misrepresented sources to support preferred narratives
• WP:RS
  • Deleted sources they personally deemed unreliable
  • Misrepresented reliable sources to support their preferred narratives
  • Deleted a number of sources used in the article (not all sources must be perfectly neutral; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which says "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") and then claimed that the subject did not meet notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Possible WP:SOCK and WP:COI manipulations
  • Allegations of off-wiki coordination with IP users (via Discord or elsewhere)
  • Allegations of sockpuppeting on an unrelated article but with similar behavioral complaints raised by other editors (see [74]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never made a report like this before on Wikipedia, so I do not know if this is the proper way to do this. I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Wikipedia. I have also tried to always assume good faith, and I am hoping that this incident can be resolved. Thank you for your time, and I hope to continue contributing to Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This, of course, completely disregards the fact that most editors agree with BrocadeRiverPoems's edits. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You know @HackerKnownAs, you haven't participated I can't find any traces of you in this RFC, which took place at the bottom of the page. This RFC has been up since 4th of November , and the discussion whether 15.ai should be in the past tense is since 7th of November. At least discuss there before reverting other editors consensus. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Even @BrocadeRiverPoems has discussed there, why haven't you done that too? 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins please ban HackerKnownAs! Its so obvious his edits are only to make trouble. Andthewinnerisme (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this) i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors Rin6626 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that an RFC was up, let alone know what an RFC was. I apologize for my ignorance, but I've largely stayed away from Wikipedia politics in favor of making edits that I believe contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@HackerKnownAs: Firstly, you are required to notify the user you are reporting on their talk page, using the template provided at the top of this page.

Secondly, can you explain this edit where you appear to further an edit war in order to make a point?

Thirdly, can you explain why Wikipediocracy is being used as "evidence", both here and in the previous diff? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I have never made a report like this before, so I was not aware of the first point. I will make that notification after I finish writing this.

For the second point, I was under the assumption that being bold and making changes yourself was encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:BOLD. Again, I am sorry if this was seen as furthering an edit war; that was not my intention. My intention was to revert the article back to a stable point before all of the edit warring occurred.

For the third point, I am not using it as evidence, but as supplemental material. I was not aware of this forum before I found this discussion, and I found it interesting and relevant that the exact same complaints that I and various other editors have had about this user were restated in this forum. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the talk page and the edit history of 15.ai, you are repeatedly restoring your preferred version against the consensus of multiple other editors, who have complained about this behaviour on the talk page.[75][76]

I'll be blunt; this looks like a retaliatory, frivolous report full of WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd suggest to the admins that this be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1257688676#15.ai behavioral issues., filed by BRP, may be relevant background to this filing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HackerKnownAs, each one of your many accusations has to be accompanied by a "diff" or edit illustrating an example of the behavior you are identifying or this report could be seen as casting aspersions. Evidence, not just suspicions, have to be present in a report. Also, if you have evidence of misbehavior in an off-Wikipedia platform, please send it to the Arbitration Committee, there are privacy concerns that make it inappropriate to be shared here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the underlying merits of this either way, I am pretty sure that everything here just had a whole ArbCom case about it. As such I'd support quick closing this as moot: if you go through a whole case where you were a party without sanctions, I don't think that bringing that same person to ANI right after for the same behavior is appropriate. Loki (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I might be a little sensitive to the whole "retaliatory-report-based-on-old-evidence" thing right now, but I'd think that alone should merit a BOOMERANG here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, the editor who posted in the AN was advised to bring it over to AN/I. I apologize if this was not appropriate – I was not aware. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm the admin that stated that ANI was a more appropriate noticeboard for this level of specific complaints than the discussion that was started at AN which I closed. But, as I said, you need to start adding diffs soon to support your accusations or this could backfire on you. It's a risk of posting a complaint on a noticeboard that all parties are under scrutiny. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added my diffs. I apologize again for not following the appropriate formatting for this report. I will continue to edit to bring some more context. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HackerKnownAs, I feel like I'm throwing a lot of advice at you tonight but it is really distracting to editors who are approaching this case with fresh eyes to have so much content BOLDED. Using Bold or Italics can be used for highlighting an individual word but having half of your comments in Bold font will just turn readers off. It's a little overwhelming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I attempted to follow the same formatting style as in the last AN report, where the relevant quotes were formatted differently from the original text. Is there an easier way to do this? HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Consider {{tq|q=y|Quote goes here...}} which renders as Quote goes here... EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. To User:GhostOfDanGurney and User:Liz, I’m one of the many editors that BrocadeRiverPoems has accused of single-purpose editing by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago. I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies. Even if no decision is made here, I hope that my statement brings some context to the situation and explains that this isn’t just User:HackerKnownAs posting out of retaliation, it’s all of us affected by it behind it. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, SirGallantThe4th, you have to provide diffs to support these claims of bad conduct. Other editors have to be able to review them to see if there is a basis to your allegations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1

I suggest you read this please. This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history. Why would a Wikipedean already taking a break due to personal life issues want to come back after reading that their contributions are meaningless because they weren’t making enough edits? It’s especially weird when someone goes through my history to try and prove my motives were evil. Bullying doesn’t have to be via name calling, it can be as simple as being cast as suspicious just because someone with more power or influence says so. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

SirGallantThe4th, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1 was chock-ful of strange accusations about off-wiki collusions, I think if an admin had seen this, they would have shut this down before it went so far. First, I think you are mistaken that this editor has power and influence as they are a relatively new editor although they do have all of the terminology down. I'd just advise you that if someone is making unfounded allegations against you, don't feel like you have to spend your time on the project defending yourself. Explaining yourself can be useful in discussions like this one on ANI but this page was a review of an article, not an examination on the motives of the editors who worked on it and this discussion went completely off-the-rails.

I will say though that it is very unusual for an editor with your level of experience to be doing GA reviews. How did you find yourself in this area of the project? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Given my suspicions have apparently been proven correct, can this be put to rest? User:SirGallantThe4th admits in their block appeal that they know HackerKnownAs [77] and have even met up in person. My suspicions about the GA assessment were, as it turns out, completely warranted. They also admit in their unblock request to essentially orchestrating harassment against me simply because they thought it was unfair that other editors were agreeing with me[78]. They specifically mention in their appeal that they were apart of a Discord together. It is not possible that an article submitted and primarily written by HackerKnownAs which was reviewed, evidently, by their friend SirGallantThe4th, to be neutrally reviewed and assessed as Good. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this) i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors because theyre taking advantage of new editors who are new to wiki to make them look like idiots Rin6626 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) At the risk of being told I am bludgeoning again, the accusation that I am running a specifically transgender Discord that is dedicated to taking down MLP on Wikipedia is plainly absurd. I mean, if it pleases the jury I can record a video of me going through my Discord, you'll find no such existence of me owning this alleged Discord. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask, very politely, how you even came upon this ANI Discussion about me before even I did? It was posted 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC) and you joined the conversation at 05:51, 16 November 2024. You were not, to my understanding mentioned directly [79] in the complaint, nor were you notified on your TalkPage about it (you very well should have been, but then, so should I have been, and some other individuals as well). I'm just confused by it, I suppose, since you stated that I had made you feel so bullied that you logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. Given that you surely had 0 knowledge that there was going to be an ANI complaint posted about me, and you've never participated at ANI before, I'm just unsure as to how you go from never logging in again to happening upon an ANI discussion about me? Of course, you're totally free to complain about whatever conduct of mine you feel is egregious, I fully encourage and support it. As I said in my post below, I apologize if you feel that I bullied you, and I struck through the relevant comments. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I will state that the reporting user is currently using WPO in an edit dif [80] for a reversion. Moreover, the WPO evidence that is being used against me is essentially a duplicate of an attack page which was G10'd [81] which pretty grossly misrepresents my activity on Yasuke at large. It's so much so of a misrepresentation of my activity that I didn't even warrant a Finding of Facts on the ARBCOM case at Yasuke Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Proposed_decision. My apologies for the length of my reply, but there is a lot of ground to cover in the accusations.

Regarding Sources

Their accusations against me here include a statement Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives. The offending sources I removed were mostly deemed unreliable by consensus, were WP:SPS, or were misrepresented. For instance, the wording of the article currently reads Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,", however, reading the sources they don't actually say that. Lauren Morton actually says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating[82] and, as I mentioned, doesn't mention 15.Ai specifically in terms of "fascinating", while Natalie Clayton says It's all very fascinating to read about[83].

Andrew Ng's The Batch was declared an unreliable source when 15.ai was still a draft. Gwern describes itself as someone's personal website they use to remind themselves of stuff. I'm hardly the only editor that has found issues with the content of 15.ai.

SPA Explanation

where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems

By myself, an others, historically, even[84]. And, as indicated by your edit history [85] as I linked in the Admin Noticeboard. The only reason I even brought this to the Admin Noticeboard initially is because of the blatant WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus was reached about issues regarding the article and you continue to ignore said consensus and make reverts to your preferred version. In our exchange, I reverted your reversion of an edit that had been developed as a DRN solution to a content dispute [86][87] and after your second revert in that exchange, I stopped.

Discord Accusation

As for the accusations leveraged against me elsewhere that I'm on some discord trying to get 15.ai deleted, there's no reality or merit to that statement. I came upon 15.ai browsing random articles, saw that an edit war was transpiring, and started noticing peculiarities about the article and made note of them and fixed what I could about the article. Notably, BrocadeRiverPoems is an identity that I use exclusively for Wikipedia and nothing regarding my Discord or my life outside of Wikipedia can be linked to my editing of Wikipedia. The most I will reveal about my real life is that I had a roommate who attended the same MA Program as I, and my former roommate would edit on Wikipedia. Said information is fully disclosed on my profile. Said roommate moved out, and I haven't really spoken to them since. As I have freely admitted elsewhere, I was an IP Editor for a time, and I made the account so I could make a post regarding the historical usage of the word "sayamaki" when editors were translating the mention of Yasuke being given a sayamaki.

Hounding Accusation

by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago

Scouring through your edit history is a bit of an exaggeration. When I was looking at the Good Article Assessment after I found several problems with the article, I looked at the edit history of the Good Article Review process and discovered that you had only assessed one other article, and that that article had been deleted for copyvio. It isn't scouring your edit history to see and note that you assessed the article, that you left, and that you were specifically canvassed back[88] for the AfD and returned to vote keep at the AfD. All of that is on a singular page of edit history.

Brigading Allegations

It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies.

I am unaware that I have such sway over anyone?

It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others

Again, these are false accusations that originate from a user who got blocked after harassing myself and others[89].

AfD SPA Evidence

As for my claims that the AfD was interfered with by SPA Vote Stuffing, it plainly was. [90][91][92][93]. These individuals had limited activity on Wikipedia usually only editing 15.ai or 15.ai's competitors before voting Keep in the AfD and then disappearing from the site. One account is even named "Throwaway" indicating it was created for the specific purpose of voting in the AfD. Considering your participation in an AfD to delete NovelAI[94] which was put up for deletion by an account similarly named [95], and NovelAI is a competitor to 15.ai in that, to my understanding, NovelAI offered TTS features, it looks as if accounts were created solely to influence the 15.ai vote.

GA Discussion Rebuttal

This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history.

The page is chock full of me saying your editing contribution was suspicious because of the irregularities surrounding the article, and that regardless of that, the article should have never been assessed "Good" because it had numerous glaring issues including a source that is considered generally unreliable WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. As you can see in my initial statement, where I pointed out the unaddressed COI concern from 2022 that had been purged by a drive-by IP Editor and never properly addressed as one of many reasons the article should not have been assessed as good. My statements regarding your activity were to highlight that you were an inexperienced reviewer whose only other Good Article assessment was an article that was deleted because of copyvio, which is not a good sign for the other article. I likewise noted that your activity ceased and resumed only to defend 15.ai, as Good Article reviewers are supposed to be uninvolved in the articles which they assess. Your later statement It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 only further solidfied my belief that you shouldn't have reviewed the article, because you seem to have an interest in the topic.

If you feel that I have hounded or bullied you, than I apologize and I'll go strike it out right now.

Off-Site Manipulation Evidence

As for statements that I make baseless claims about off-site manipulation of the article, Anonymous uses at PPP discuss fabricating sources [96]. When the article was published, it was announced on the PPP according to the archived discussion that was used as a literal source in the article [97]. Likewise, [98] and [99]. When the image was deleted from the Wikimedia commons for copyvio, they re-uploaded it as non-freeuse which I put up for deletion because it didn't fulfill the non-free use policy requirements [100]. The Level of the Pony Preservation Project's involvement in 15.ai is apparently to such an extent that HackerKnownAs created an entire redirect to 15.ai of Pony Preservation Project[101] [102]. Here are people claiming the Wikipedia article is someone's reputation [103] Here is a post directing people to use 15.ai for the history of the PPP [104]. Here is a post discussing even creating the article [105], dated 07 Mar 2020, with the article being created 05 Apr 2020 [106].

Talk Page COI Deletion

As for the argument that I only push things that support myself, the user who seems vigilant about vandalism did not bat an eyelash in regard to the deletion by an IP Address that other than apparently engaging in BLP Vandalism, only removed a talk page discussion about their potential COI editing [107][108] shortly before the article was nominated for GA Status.

Unconstructive Edit Rebuttal

As for my edits being "unconstructive", I removed a Medium link that was members only, and a Gwern link that directly referenced the Wikipedia article [109], I removed a cited tweet that didn't say what it was being cited for as well as a Gwern link that didn't mention the PPP or 15.ai directly [110]. Here, I removed Andrew Ng who was being misrepresented and Tyler Crowen's blog because the blog is a WP:SPS and Tyler Crown is an economist, not an expert in AI. [111], I later found out that Andrew Ng was declared an unreliable source when the article was a draft, but was re-added after the draft was released as an erroneously flagged minor edit [112] and I removed WeGotThisCovered and more Andrew Ng [113]. Beyond those edits, I reverted HackerKnownAs when he undid the compromise that was decided at DRN which HackerKnownAs reverted and I did not further contest.

My next edit on the main article was undoing a user randomly changing the dates of maintenance tags and in the article [114].

Misrepresentation Evidence

At the Good Article Reassessment when I pointed out flaws in the reviews, I was asked Are you able to fix these issues by AirshipJungleman29 and so I did [115]. I also corrected the contents of the Japanese sources since they seemed to be google translated and were wrong [116]. Roughly translated, the Japanese actually states Some users used 15.ai to show a demonstration of their use of GLaDOS for an assistant by using the tool “VoiceAttack,” which enables a PC to be controlled by voice. At this point, it looks like Siri-esque sorcery. Perhaps in the future, through the power of such services, there may be an assistant that can assist the user with a voice of his/her choice!, which is not quite the same as saying "15.ai is like magic". Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [117] that these defamatory accusations harvested from an attack page that was recreated on WPO are continuing to be thrown around. Noting, again, that the original content of this so-called evidence used was originally created by a user who engaged in a campaign of harassment against myself and other editors, see User:Nocomputersintexas and [118], specifically, the removed edits from the IP Editor specifically mention 4chan and directing individuals from 4chan to harass me. This coming from User:RocketKnightX who, during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [119][120]. Given the user's edit warring at 15.ai [121][122][123][124][125] and their continuing edit warring [126] [127] I suggest at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX.

Likewise, as per above, I also propose WP:BOOMERANG on User:HackerKnownAs, and would request the defamatory edit history of [128] be expunged for WP:NPA. User:HackerKnownAs continues to ignore TalkPage consensus [129][130]. Looking at their edit information, they rarely engage in talkpages and have extensively edited 4chan and 15.ai in particular, which I feel qualifies them as a WP:SPA [131] defined in WP:SPA as A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose and that single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Their statements about 15.ai show a strong personal opinion about 15.ai to the point of accusing a nomination at AfD as being badfaith [132] and stating themself that was extremely crucial in the development of TTS voice generation[133]. However, despite a few editors making this claim, no substantial reliable source has ever been provided to support this claim. Furthermore, User:HackerKnownAs has made numerous wide-sweeping reversions in the name of fighting vandalism that indiscriminately remove constructive edits to return to the article to a state they personally approve of [134][135][136].

They also misrepresented the sources[137] that they added to the reception section in what amounts to editorlization. As noted above, neither of the articles cited actually refer to 15.ai itself as fascinating. The user also shows WP:OWNERBEHAVIOR in their constant reversion to their preferred version and their refusal to participate in consensus building [138] or Dispute Resolution despite being invited to participate after their reversions [139]. As you can see here [140] they have not participated in any meaningful discussion on 15.ai's talkpage since 2022. During the AfD for the article, HackerKnownAs WP:CANVASSED User:SirGallantThe4th, and SirGallant alone, to the AfD [141] at the time this occurred, the AfD was leaning toward Delete. Afterward, the SPA's I noted above also arrive and vote Keep. I do not know what manner of sanction would be appropriate, but I do feel that edit summary should be expunged if possible.

I also would like to propose that User:Rin6626 is blatantly WP:NOTHERE, as all they have done is make baseless accusations [142][143][144] since creating their account. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User blocked. Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you i wish i had more screenshots on me before i left that server but youre mistaken if youre gonna get away with this to the admins of this place brocade is known for gaslighting people on discord, theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it) Rin6626 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC) brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you I can assure you this is completely untrue. theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it) The amount of times I've been reprimanded sorta runs afoul this theory that I know everything about the Wikipedia rules, does it not? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Just as an aside, I've blocked Rin6626 as WP:NOTHERE. The allegations above, mixed with the fact that this is a brand new account, tells me at best they are here to stir up trouble, and at worst this is a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So is no one going to address the suspicious circumstances surrounding User:BrocadeRiverPoems and X0n10ox (now [145])? They admit to sharing the same IP address and display identical editing patterns as documented in [146], with the questionable explanation of being "roommates" during the Yasuke-Wikipedia controversy just four months ago.

Consider the sequence of events:

1. X0n10ox makes multiple Yasuke-related edits
2. They delete their account claiming "their username was posted on 4chan"
3. Days later, BrocadeRiverPoems appears, makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection
4. BrocadeRiverPoems then advocates the identical position as their supposed roommate, exhibiting the same confrontational attitude that other editors have noted concerns about

This pattern should raise serious WP:SOCK concerns. The coincidences are difficult to ignore:

• Same IP address
• Similar editing style
• Same topic focus
• Similar behavioral patterns
• Suspicious timing

What's particularly ironic is that this user has a history of challenging other editors based on suspicious editing patterns. I anticipate they or their cronies will attempt to dismiss this analysis based on the fact that I'm posting as an IP editor.

Furthermore, we're now seeing IP editors consistently defending BrocadeRiverPoems across multiple discussions. The first reply to this thread is a perfect example. These patterns warrant closer examination. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If the supposed alternate account never edits it does not matter. Per WP:CLEANSTART this is allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't about WP:CLEANSTART itself -- it's about the pattern of behavior continuing unchanged. While users are allowed fresh starts, the concerning aspect here is that the same confrontational editing style and topic focus immediately resumed under the new account. WP:CLEANSTART is suppose dto give editors a chance to start fresh with better practices, not to simply continue problematic and alienating behavior under a different name. To quote,

• "The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior."

We should also note that this isn't just about past behavior - we're seeing active patterns with the IP editors consistently appearing to defend BrocadeRiverPoems's positions. This suggests the account may not be operating independently, which goes beyond the scope of a clean start. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just look at this diff [147] (out of many, many of them -- I just chose one at random) where he berates an editor for not responding within a week, stating "Those who are opposed to its inclusion, and those that believe it should be a minority view, have had ample time in the past week to furnish any reliable source that would substantiate their claims." This shows a problematic assumption that Wikipedia editors should be constantly available and able to respond within an arbitrary timeframe. It fails to acknowledge that editors are volunteers who have lives outside Wikipedia and may not be able to participate in discussions on someone else's schedule. This is blatant WP:BATTLEGROUNDING and a continuation of the past problematic behavior. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you post the evidence here or at an WP:SPI, instead of in an external website, maybe a response will come faster. – 2804:F1...C6:3070 (::/32) (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, anyone with a brain see that the roommate excuse is BS. Question is will the admins do something about it or let it happen and let them go round bullying more people because he is a special group. 198.136.190.5 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A lot of "please block me" going on in this thread. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So, CLEANSTART does not apply here for two reasons: One is that X0n10ox appears to have vanished. Vanishing is a deal you make where you are promising that you are going away, permanently, and your account is renamed to something gibberishy.

The other is that if the new account displays the same behaviors of the old account, it is not a clean start.

I would also add, following along from comments way up the thread, that putting a link to WPO in an edit sumarry to "prove" someone is a sock and therefore justify a revert is way, way out of line. That's absolutely not valid proof of anything, and if you are going to accuse someone of socking, gather your actual evidence and file an WP:SPI. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I shouldn't have to point out that deliberately misgendering me and saying I'm part of a "special group" is pretty incivil per WP:EDPRONOUNS which notes ARBCOM here[148]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is hopefully the last time I have to post about this. The entire argument that I'm a sock hinges on the fact that I disclosed I had a roommate as suggested by WP:ROOMMATE which says Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry., the same page reads When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics..

Roommate Note

I did not participate on Talk Yasuke while my roommate was still active on Wikipedia. My roommate was also quite vociferously in support of a particular position [149] [150].

My first involvement in Yasuke as an IP Address was in relation to sources and interested me because of a mention of the Tang Dynasty [151][152], as my edit history shows, I have a wide interest in Ancient Chinese history. Compared to my roommate's rather vocal support to Yasuke being definitively declared as a Samurai, my own activity has been more moderate [153] and I created an RFC that quite literally supported the opposite position of my roommate [154][155]. Again, notably, at the ARBCOM case there were no sanctions or findings of fact relating to me. However, the evidence that was submitted about my participation shows that my editing differed from that of my roommate[156]

Complaint Origin

The user who created the original attack page accusing me of being a bully and a sockpuppet of my roommate had their talkpage comments removed by another editor [157] for NOTFORUM. As the user had already been warned [158] I had posted [159] another warning because I felt that they at least deserved to receive a warning notification since their talkpage activity had been deleted.

The editor in question proceeded to claim I was ganging up on them with Symphony and Gitz[160] and then created an entire narrative about all three of us that was later G10'd. Said user, after being blocked, started posting on 4chan directing people to harass me with one post reading On their own userpage they admit they have the SAME IP as "X0n10ox". It's obviously the SAME person who has created a new account to hide their past history. Outside of that, I was mentioned semi-favorably [161] where my editing at Yasuke was described Though we have disagreed strongly at times, their contributions to this topic, while occasionally verbose, have been cogent and constructive, which does not seem to align with the narrative that I am bullying people off Yasuke and heavily patrolling it. Accusations, again, which the ARBCOM did not see necessary to address. In my last trip to ANI, it was under the accusation that I was an anti-Yasuke sockpuppet master [162] which was ultimately closed by the complaining party after a handful of people opposed their proposal.

Re:Sock Activity

So my question is if I am a sockpuppet of my former roommate, what, exatly, of the criteria of being a sock have I met outside of disclosing that we shared an IP Address for a time? My roommate wasn't blocked or subject to any sanction, my participation in Yasuke came after he departed Wikipedia, and his stance was firmly "Yasuke was unambiguously a Samurai" while I have expressed reasonable doubt based on available sources and was brought to ANI for essentially having the opposite stance? The sole basis of the accusations on the attack page and on the subsequent WPO thread is the fact that I did what WP:ROOMMATE told me to do to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. Since doing that, it has done nothing but result in said accusations. The entire farce of a complaint that was deleted was petty retaliation because I had posted a warning on a user's talkpage for WP:NOTFORUM as the user in question had posted a bunch of stuff about Symphony Regalia on Talk Yasuke that Gitz removed. The "bullying" which they refer to is the fact that Gitz removed the offending content, and that I felt it was only appropriate that the user in question should be notified of what they'd done wrong.

Timeline

As for the accusation I appeared "days later", my roommate departed [163], I created my account over a full month later on 27 July 2024[164], I first posted in Yasuke on 19 June 2024. I created the account because Talk Yasuke was rightly locked to IP Editors, and I was trying to relay information about the historical usage of sayamaki [165] as users were making incorrect statements about what a sayamaki could mean. I also find the characterization that I makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection to be confusing, because I was using the suggested edits dashboard to take me to pages which I did my best to improve based on what the dashboard told me they needed, which in most cases were sources [166][167] [168][169][170][171][172]. This is activity which did not abruptly stop when I began participating in Yasuke, either [173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184] As you can see from many of those diffs, I was directed to articles as part of newcomer tasks, and if you look at my history, my usage of that suggested editing persists long after I was allowed to participate in Talk Yasuke myself.

Ongoing Harassment

These continually baseless accusations which are unfortunately part of a harassment campaign. Per the ARBCOM's Finding of Facts [185] Participants in the dispute have been subject to harassment, both on and off of Wikipedia. (BrocadeRiverPoems evidence, Symphony Regalia evidence) Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC). The very WPO thread that is being used to lodge this complaint is a thread I submitted as evidence to ARBCOM[186]. It is worth repeating, again, that ARBCOM did not sanction me despite having access to the WPO accusations. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a very minor point but I just read through much of this dispute and I have a question: What on Earth is the "Pony Preservation Project" and what does this group have to do with Wikipedia and our article about artificial intelligence? Thanks for humoring me, it's my reward for reading all of this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, and this is advice to any editor, do not post 12-15 diffs when you can make the same point with 2 to 3 diffs. No one who is reviewing this is going to look at all of those diffs, that is just excessive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for over-supplying diffs, I just wanted to substantiate that the activity they were calling unusual was activity I long continued even after I had access to Yasuke. As for the "Pony Preservation Project" and what it has to do with Wikipedia and an article on Wikipeida, it appears to be a group of MLP Fans originating on 4chan /mlp/ board who supported 15.ai's development. I only know about them because I was reviewing the sources used on 15.ai and one of the sources directed me to a "desuchan" archive of the "Pony Preservation Project" on 4chan where they were actively dicussing editing the article, with one anonymous user asking another user to fabricate sources, even. The thanks section of 15.ai's archived website reads The importance of /mlp/ throughout the development of this project cannot be overstated – once again, I thank each and every one of you anonymous contributors.[187]. Considering their involvement with the development of 15.ai, and the fact that they were actively discussing in the source archive making changes to the article, I felt it prudent to flag the article for potential WP:COI. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems, thank you so much for rearranging your responses in this complaint. They are much more readable and are more likely to be read by other editors or admins. Thanks for the explanation of PPP. I was lost there among the conspiracy theories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem! Sorry again for the massive posts. I am trying to get better about that. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

** Are there any outstanding issues that need to be resolved before this complaint is closed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: the OP has been CU blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I realize this, M.Bitton. But when the checkuser, Ivanvector, was asked to close this complaint (see below), he said that there still might be outstanding issues to resolve so that is what prompted me to ask if there were any. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The only outstanding issue is the original issue that caused this drama, the edit warring, which I shall repost in brevity here for the sake of ease.

I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [188]. User:RocketKnightX during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [189][190]. Given the user's persistent edit warring at 15.ai [191][192][193][194][195] and their continuing edit warring [196] [197] and refusal to participate in dispute resolution on talk-pager discussion in a meaningful manner[198][199][200], I propose at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably be helpful (for me at least) if you add a separate section with the TBAN proposal. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Underlying Content Dispute

Like many conduct disputes in Wikipedia, this started as a content dispute. The content dispute was over 15.ai, in particular as to what the infobox should say the status of the web site was. A request for mediation was filed at DRN. The filing editor was blocked indefinitely for conduct unrelated to the 15.ai dispute, but there were multiple editors who agreed to the ground rules, so I began moderated discussion. User:RocketKnightX was one of the editors who was invited to take part. They made a brief statement but did not take part in the following discussion. That discussion resulted in agreement to revise the article to state, in the infobox, that the web site was abandoned. They then revised the article as agreed, but RocketKnightX reverted with a brief statement. I asked them if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer. At this point the other editors and I agreed that an RFC was the next step. The RFC is currently in progress, at Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site. The DRN discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai.

That was the 15.ai content dispute. User:HackerKnownAs also refers to the Yasuke dispute. Although User:BrocadeRiverPoems was named as a party in the Yasuke dispute, there was no finding of fact against her. HackerKnownAs could have entered evidence, and did not. The handwave by HackerKnownAs against Brocade is unsubstantiated.

The 15.ai content dispute appears to have been forgotten, or overtaken by personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying this summary, Robert McClenon. Reading over the entire process, it seems like the dispute was resolved among participating editors on problematic wording but when it was implemented, the content change was reverted by editors who had not taken part in the DRN process. Hence the RFC that is going on. I hope you don't see your efforts as wasted as it does seem like a lot of ground was covered over the course of the DRN discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, User:Liz. I consider a DRN to have been productive if it results in an RFC. In that case, the DRN provides the discussion before the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This thread was a troll operation, and the trolls have been turned to stone by the light of a type G main sequence star and a special mirror that looks under bridges and in caves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The troll who started this thread has been put to bed - why not do the same with their mess by closing it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sanctioning HackerKnownAs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest that for constantly reverting against consensus, HackerKnownAs is indefinitely page blocked from 15.ai. 2400:79E0:8040:78D9:1808:A4BB:1E8:1F62 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, an IP in your ::/42 range blanked User:Ltbdl/sandbox a while after Ltbdl was blocked following violations of topic bans... Ltbdl was involved in some things related to 15.ai. Now, far be it for me to acuse someone of being a block evader (without evidence), but the only obvious related edit that I see of your range as an IP edit is a single 15.ai talk page edit (diff) and seemingly no other participation.

It just makes me wonder who you are, how you found yourself here, why you decided to propose a sanction against another user who you've apparently not interacted with. – 2804:F1...C6:3070 (::/32) (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats weird, but I can assure you that I am not Ltbdl. Im the 180 guy. 2400:79E0:8041:59B8:1808:A7C3:DF68:6EE0 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Admins please ban HackerKnownAs! Its so obvious his edits are only to make trouble. Andthewinnerisme (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How on Earth do you think that the recommendations of accounts with 1 or 2 edits are going to lead to the block of an editor? You have no demonstratible experience editing this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:

• HackerKnownAs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SirGallantThe4th (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rin6626 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Andthewinnerisme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since Rin6626 is already blocked, and all of the accounts have commented in this thread, all will be blocked indef per WP:BE, WP:GHBH, and WP:PROJSOCK. I'll create an SPI shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ivanvector, can you also close this thread? I think we are done here. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I should - there have been concerns raised in good faith by and about editors who aren't part of this sock ring, and I'm not really familiar with what's been going on here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed TBAN of RocketKnightX

User:RocketKnightX has continued to engage in an edit war at 15.ai despite having been warned for it in the past [201]. User:RocketKnightX during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [202][203]. Given the user's persistent edit warring at 15.ai [204][205][206] and their continued slow-edit warring [207] [208] and refusal to participate in dispute resolution or talk-page discussion in a meaningful manner[209][210][211] and noting that the user seems to have competency and maturity issues as demonstrated here [212][213] I propose at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX from editing at 15.ai, if not an indefinite one. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban. I doubt that they wont cause issues on 15.ai if left unblocked. 2400:79E0:8070:6AE:1808:F1BB:1DB:E998 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop. Happy now? RocketKnightX (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

While I do not think it is up to me, if you say you're going to stop edit warring, that's good enough for me. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Croystron failure to communicate

Hello. Croystron, who has over 4,000 edits, again refuses to respond to his latest talk page entry here. I have also pinged Croystron on his talk page on the entry, and now ping the editor, again, here: Croystron, plus putting the ANI-notice on his talk page. He was previously blocked for two weeks for the failure to communicate with no apparent effect as the editor, again, refuses to communicate. Perhaps a longer block is necessary to provide a significant downside for Croyston's repeated and persistent failure to communicate. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not he "refuses to respond" which is implying you know his motivation. They may not know that they have a talk page, we don't know. But the fact is that they have never made a single post to a Talk page, User talk page or noticeboard. So, I don't think we can expect them to respond here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well Liz, I would think Croystron would notice the prominent talk page alerts on the top of each page when editing, specially since besides a talk page entry showing up, Croystron was separately pinged. Also, I would think his previous two week block would cause Croystron to wonder why. Is it your view that failure to check a talk page after multiple alerts on the top every page when editing relieves an editor of a need to communicate? It seems to me the editor should be required to communicate and, specially since Croystron has over 4,000 edits, ignorance is not an excuse. Also, not previously discussed is the basis for communication, that Croystron is violating Wikipedia's editing policy and consensus policy by not providing edit summaries. Regardless, a significant block of a month should serve Croystron well, either alerting that communication cannot be ignored, or alerting to start attending to the talk page. Otherwise, how do you suggest a 4,000 edit editor be further alerted to respond to an editing policy violation? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the editing besides not providing edit summaries? Is there a way of forcing edit summary use in mainspace? I note they have edited draft talk once, but I think that might have been an automated edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the "editing policy violation" that Croystron is guilty of? I see that since 1 October Croystron (talk · contribs) has been pretty good about adding edit summaries. Not perfect but they are making an attempt which makes this comment a little out of place. Plus they haven't edited since 12 November so they may not have even seen any of the recent notices. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• P-block from article space to try to get this editor's attention. This editor was blocked previously for MOS violations + refusal to explain. People have asked them to use edit summaries multiple times, and they've never bothered to respond. Not providing edit summaries wastes other editors' time, even when edits are clearly good. When someone won't respond to queries at their talk, I think a block is completely reasonable to try to get their attention. Valereee (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since 1 October they have made 143 edits. Of these 25 are listed as "No edit summary". And so because of that they are now partially blocked. I think that's a bit of an overreaction. They complied with the request to add summaries and still got partially blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  This seems like an overreaction, especially considering what CambridgeBayWeather noted above about their edit summary usage. I am still unclear about what the actual policy violation is supposed to be here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd forgotten about Analysis of edit summary usage. They have made 337 edits since September and 203 (60%) with summaries a huge improvement over their first year, but it could be better. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would note that when they were previously blocked, the blocking admin said Please understand that, due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you're required to communicate when requested. You're welcome to resume editing after the block expires, but I do wish you'd be more cooperative with those editors with legitimate concerns if you'd continue to be here.. So saying edit sumarries are the only issue seems to ignore this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  But that's what this seems to be about. From Valereee "This editor was blocked previously for MOS violations + refusal to explain. People have asked them to use edit summaries multiple times, and they've never bothered to respond. Not providing edit summaries wastes other editors' time, even when edits are clearly good. When someone won't respond to queries at their talk".

  The last time communication was mentioned was User talk:Croystron#November 2024 Why won't you provide edit summaries? on 12 November (the last day that Croystron edited and being P-blocked three days later does not look good), and that wasn't so much about communicating but about edit summaries, something that they have been doing for a while. There is currently three comments about communicating on Croystron's talk page. Two from Quaerens-veritatem about edit summaries! One from Valereee when she P-blocked them.

  So really until now nobody has explained what is meant by communication on Wikipedia. Taking Wikipedia:Assume good faith at face value they may well think that the only problem was the edit summaries and that is an acceptable means of communication. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't know why this ping never came through, but it didn't. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad block: The only issue identified here is that Croystron hasn't responded to a four-day-old post on their talk page about how they were not using edit summaries when, in fact, they were using edit summaries. Croystron also hasn't edited for four days at this point, so I'm not seeing why a P-block from mainspace is currently necessary. Blocks are preventative, and there's been no evidence presented here that Croystron has been making any kind of disruptive edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you think we should unblock, it's fine. For me a p-block from article space for someone who has basically never found talk space is helpful to getting them to realize there is such a thing, but I'm open to objection to that. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there was something that needed urgent discussing with this editor, I would agree that a P-block would be appropriate here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Like I said, if you think we should unblock, it's fine. I think a p-block from article space when someone has been editing for over a year, has never used a talk page, and hasn't responded to multiple concerns expressed on their talk is appropriate. I tagged the block as anyone should feel free to unblock, with or without a properly formatted unblock request. I'm not trying to be a hardass, here. I'm just trying to get an editor's attention to the fact other editors are trying to communicate with them. Valereee (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given that they started using edit summaries three months ago I'm sure that they know of the existence of talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good block: The block would be for failure to communicate, including not just for absence of talk page replies and non-response to ANI-notices, but also no response to multiple pings. The editor was blocked before for failure to respond. Block may now gain the editor's attention to start communicating. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quaerens-veritatem, considering the editor hasn't edited for 4 days, I don't think they can be charged with "non-response to ANI-notices". You just posted this complaint today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well Liz, the editor did not respond to an ANI-notice provided before the first block way back on 22 September 2024, or talk page entries, or several pings. The editor continued not to respond. Again, how do you suggest an over one year editor with 4,000 edits be otherwise alerted to respond to a failure to respond violation (which has continued from way before 22 September 2024)? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quaerens-veritatem, I think you have done everything possible to inform this editor of existing problems, you have done your due diligence. But you can't control how other editors will or will not respond. There are editors who read each new message that gets posted to their User talk page and others who ignore their talk page beause they want to focus on article editing and not chatting with other editors. Then we have mobile editors who aren't even aware that they have a User talk page. We have to find ways to communicate with all types of editors including IP editors who don't have a stable User talk page and jump around to different IPs. You can only do your best which I think you have done. All I was asking in my original message is to Assume Good Faith and don't interpret a lack of immediate response as a sign of rejection or intentional avoidance. It could just be their temperament and editing patterns and have nothing to do with the message you posted. But, of course, if the editor came to participate here, we could learn more about their reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Given that there's clearly a difference of opinion on how to handle this, I've taken a step back by unblocking and instead requesting the user communicate before editing again. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  They commented. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, that is unexpected. A first. Now, if we can get them to come here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:NigelPorter and User:Bjcook; potential COI and/or SOCK

I recently requested a review of the article Brendon Cook as I believe that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, reasons for which can be found here. This article already has a COI cloud under it, as User:Bjcook (a direct reference to the subject's name) created the article and continues to edit Wikipedia regularly.

User:NigelPorter then stated his opinion, however did not reference any Wikipedia policies or even clearly state whether they supported or opposed the AfD. Having replied to them with valid reasons as to why their suggestions did not meet Wikipedia's criteria, they then proceeded to claim that I had some sort of "personal agenda" against the subject of the article due to my user name - despite their user page containing userboxes indicating similar interests. This user then immediately copied the contents of the article into their sandbox, indicating that they will immediately resubmit the article if it is deleted.

Their actions towards the proposed deletion of the article suggest a potential COI or an attitude of article ownership, or even a potential sock puppet of User:Bjcook, that is in disregard to Wikipedia policy. MSportWiki (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Three main things:

1. I am going to note that Bjcook has not edited Brendon Cook since 2007. While there might be a COI concern with respect to that, I don't really think that alone would be cause for action.
2. We then move to the sockpuppetry allegations: Both Bjcook and NigelPorter have an interest in Australian racing (and sport more broadly), and they are both infrequent but longtime editors. I don't see enough to block here on mere comparisons of topic interest, though it might be worth a checkuser taking a look. I'd suggest you lodge that at WP:SPI, which is more competent to handle those concerns.
3. As for civility and WP:OWNERSHIP, I agree that this is unnecessarily inflammatory, and I would note that this is a WP:COPYWITHIN violation in addition to a clear attempt to skirt the AfD by unilaterally userfying the page.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

An SPI has been opened here, thank you. MSportWiki (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Both editors have contributed to Queensland netball-related articles in the last few months (Bjcook and NigelPorter) whilst Brendon Cook sits on a board for Indigenous netball in Queensland (sources 1 2) – clear evidence of COI and sockpuppetry. @Acalamari, Discospinster, Finlay McWalter, Graeme Bartlett, Joe Roe, Liz, Mjroots, Pppery, Tassedethe, and Voorts: pinging some randomly active editors to kickstart the procedure. MSportWiki (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You'd be better off taking the above to WP:SPI. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Done (here), thank you. MSportWiki (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You will see that we both attended, with many other Wikipedians in Brisbane, meet ups advertised and encouraged. Just because I became wiki friends with many of the attendants and share common interests, is not sockpuppertry. There is no COI because User:Bjcook is not Brendon Cook. His name is Brian.

You will also see that we have different IP addresses. We don't live or work with each other.

I find it distressing that the first person to disagree with you has a case opened against them. This is an attack on me. NigelPorter (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NigelPorter, I know it is disconcerting to be included in an SPI report. I know it was for me when I first started editing. And it's happened to many other editors. Just let the process work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Erobran

This user continues to add new flight service at Jorge Chávez International Airport (Turkish Airlines will start Lima to Istanbul flights in June without providing an exact date as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Left messages regarding and left him a link to the discussion but continues to argue and be nasty about it. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Dude.

Is it you who removes useful relevant information? In doing so, it is you who is vandalizing.

the wikiproject referred to is NOT the official wikipedia rules!

the rules for wikipedia are simply that there must be a source when something is published. NOT ALL THE ELSE!

I have as much right to write as I do as you do! In addition, it is vandalism when you and the other person constantly undo my edit around a legal edit with sources!

if you also read the project it is also there. "Are not official guidelines"! Erobran (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DR has lots of suggestions for resolving disputes. I suggest both OP and Erobran look at those.

And, Erobran, while it is natural to get upset in this situation, putting your emotions into your replies does not help, and probably hurts, the process of coming to a satisfactory resolution of an online disagreement. Please focus on the facts of the disagreement. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

the rules for wikipedia are simply that there must be a source when something is published. No, this is completely wrong. Wikipedia has a massive number of policies and guidelines regarding what should be included, of which WP:Verifiability is only one small part. That page explicitly states that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (WP:VNOT). You should also read up on what WP:Vandalism is, it has a specific definition on wikipedia and mislabelling good faith edits as vandalism is going to get you into trouble. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Erobran - while I don't think this needed to be brought here (it's a bit of an escalation of a content dispute), can I suggest you take a look at WP:EW? If a bunch of people are reverting you, you need to go to the talk page and discuss your changes and get consensus for them. Don't just keep reinstating them or you'll end up blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Girth Summit: User reverting at Istanbul Airport [214]. 2600:1700:8544:D000:9D0E:3239:A3E:70F8 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just being clear their last revert at Istanbul Airport was prior to the submission of this incident so this is part of the original reported behaviour and not new behaviour after the report, right? Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've given Erobran some advice on why edit warring to force through their preferred version of these pages is problematic. I don't think that this needs any further action immediately; their editing seems to be somewhat sporadic, but if they continue in the same vein when they resume editing feel free to ping me from here if this hasn't been archived, or report at WP:ANEW. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • What I find problematic is his blatant disregard of community guidelines. The Banner talk 13:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Hi again "The Banner"

    Now I have read the elaboration. I am partially right in my claim that a WikiProject does NOT define when an edit is correct or incorrect. That would give me the right to edit as I had done WITHOUT specifying a start date. (If you read several other pages about airports, a start date is also not specified) That is why I took it as personal harassment!

    However, it must be said that I have NOT approached the matter sufficiently. What I should have done was to justify the decision instead of simply reversing an edit. I will do this in the future on the talk pages instead. Erobran (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly edit war

86.184.52.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Uness232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are engaged in an edit war at Isles of Scilly about climate classification. There is ongoing discussion/argument on the talk page, but it hasn't stopped the constant reversions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Uness232 is adding claims that the Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are "sub tropical" without providing any sources or gaining consensus on the talk page first.

Trewartha's climate classification clearly states that marine locations have to be frost-free. I've provided sources for this.

None of Uness232's claimed 'subtropical' locations are frost-free. Suggesting Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are 'subtropical' also defies common sense - look at the climate data for these places in winter! They are not subtropical by any definition.

I'm happy to stop editing.

But please consider the article history and the nature of Uness232's claims carefully before you pass judgment.

Allowing unsourced claims that places are "subtropical" when they are clearly not makes Wikipedia look unreliable and untrustworthy. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both editors have been partially blocked from the article for 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here to say that there are some serious bludgeoning issues as well in the discussion beneath the RFC, which doesn't seem to meet the neutrality requirements. I'm not really sure [215] this is productive discussion behavior, and the IP editor also seems to have strangely used ChatGPT to try and prove their point? [216]. I was browsing the RfCs in the history section, as I sometimes do, and I came upon the RFC and saw the strange discussion underneath. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. I’d like to take this opportunity to refocus the discussion on the core issue at hand: the addition of contentious claims without reliable sources, particularly regarding the Isles of Scilly, Bordeaux, and Istanbul being "subtropical."

=== The Onus to Provide Reliable Sources ===

Per Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy (WP

), any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable, published source. The claim that these locations are subtropical clearly falls into this category, as it has been disputed and does not align with widely accepted climate classifications. Therefore, the onus is on Unes232 to provide reliable sources that explicitly support this assertion before adding or reinstating it into the article.

=== Adherence to Established Climate Definitions ===

The Trewartha climate classification, which appears to be the framework at issue, has specific criteria. If sources (like those already provided) indicate that frost-free conditions are a requirement for a subtropical marine classification, any proposed subtropical designation must align with this criterion. Otherwise, it constitutes original research, which is prohibited under Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy (WP

).

=== Consensus and Edit Warring ===

Unes232’s additions should have been discussed on the talk page prior to being added to the article, as required by WP

. This ensures that claims are properly evaluated by multiple editors before becoming part of the mainspace. Instead, repeated unsourced edits have led to edit warring, which disrupts collaboration.

=== Maintaining Wikipedia’s Credibility ===

Allowing poorly sourced or unsourced claims to remain damages Wikipedia’s reputation as a reliable reference. Per WP

, climate-related claims must be sourced from peer-reviewed literature, expert publications, or other authoritative sources. None of the disputed claims meet this standard, and relying on "common sense" or vague reasoning does not substitute for verifiable evidence.

=== Addressing the RFC and Discussion Tone ===

While I understand concerns about the RFC’s neutrality or discussion behaviour, these issues are secondary to ensuring that the article adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies. As editors, we are all responsible for improving articles, which includes removing unsourced or poorly sourced material and focusing discussions on the policies and evidence at hand.

I respectfully suggest that we redirect efforts toward sourcing robust, verifiable evidence for any disputed claims. If no reliable source can be found, the material cannot remain in the article. This is not about “winning” an argument but upholding Wikipedia's standards and credibility. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is ANI, which is about editor conduct, not content. Also considering the fact that you used ChatGPT as a source, I kinda heavily suspect this is AI Generated... Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. While I appreciate your input, I’d like to refocus on the actual issues here: proper sourcing, adherence to Wikipedia policies, and the conduct surrounding these edits.

=== The Core Issue: Unsourced Material and Policy Violations ===

The main concern is that Unes232 has repeatedly added unsourced material to the article, claiming the Isles of Scilly, Bordeaux, and Istanbul are subtropical under Trewartha classification. These additions:

• Lack reliable sources.
• Contradict existing sourced material, which defines subtropical regions under Trewartha as requiring frost-free conditions.
• Constitute original research if derived from editor interpretation rather than explicitly published material.

Furthermore, repeatedly re-adding contentious material without building consensus on the talk page violates WP policies.

. This pattern disrupts collaboration and undermines Wikipedia’s credibility.

=== Personal Attack and False Allegation ===

Your accusation of "using ChatGPT as a source" is both false and unsubstantiated. It is inappropriate to suggest that an editor’s arguments are invalid based on unfounded claims about how they were generated. This amounts to a personal attack, which detracts from constructive discussion and violates Wikipedia’s principles of respectful collaboration. Please focus on addressing the arguments and evidence presented rather than speculating about motives or methods.

=== Editor Conduct and ANI ===

This discussion is indeed about editor conduct. In this case, the conduct at issue is not the IP editor’s but rather Unes232’s repeated addition of unsourced material and removal of sourced content. These actions go against core content policies and have directly caused the edit war. My actions have been focused on enforcing Wikipedia’s guidelines by removing unsourced claims and ensuring that disputed content is backed by verifiable evidence.

=== Moving Forward ===

To resolve this, we must ensure that all claims about the Isles of Scilly's climate are:

1. Based on reliable, verifiable sources.
2. Added only after reaching consensus on the talk page.
3. Evaluated against established policies.

I invite all editors to focus on these principles and avoid personal attacks or unfounded accusations. Wikipedia thrives on collaborative, policy-driven discussions, and adhering to these standards will help us improve the article constructively. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop writing essays with ChatGPT. qcne (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

86.184, please consider this an only warning: If you continue posting LLM boilerplate here (or at the article talk page [217][218], or in any other discussion venue) in lieu of actually engaging with your fellow editors, I will impose a sitewide block. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blablubbs more LLM boilerplate posted here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, AirshipJungleman29. Blocked one week. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ustadeditor2011

Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly disrupting content at All We Imagine as Light. Among other changes, they are continuously suppressing a limited theatrical release date that is supported by reliable sources and claiming the release never occurred, providing no sources to back their claim. I opened a talk page discussion for consensus-building and have repeatedly warned them against restoring their desired versions to the article. They have ignored all warnings and continued to edit the page back to their version. They initially reverted my reversion by claiming to be reverting vandalism when the edits are not vandalism. They were previously warned by Toddy1 about making such claims, as well as receiving many other warnings about disruptive behavior and attacking users. Their previous behavior prompted an AN discussion which resulted in a partial block.

I have warned them against edit warring on their talk page here, same here, here and here. I have also warned them against edit warring in my reversion here and repeatedly in discussion at Talk:All We Imagine as Light#Re: edits by Ustadeditor2011, to no avail. After a final user talk warning in which I very clearly appealed for them to utilise the talk page of the article to demonstrate that their claims are verifiable by way of being supported by reliable sources and I requested that they not change the article without getting consensus first, they balked and reinstated their preferred version for the fifth time. Jon698 once again reverted these edits. Οἶδα (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Οἶδα: If he/she is edit warring, it would be better to close this report and make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Such a report would require diffs showing that they were repeatedly reverting other editor's edits. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Toddy1: I did not report this user at the edit warring noticeboard because their four reverts were performed in a 1-day 19-hour period. I figured that it would not qualify as being "just outside" the 24-hour period as stated at WP:3RR. Οἶδα (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both the above and Talk:All We Imagine as Light#Re: edits by Ustadeditor2011 suggested that your complaint was that he/she was edit-warring.

Ustadeditor2011 made an initial edit^[219] and four reverts^{[220][221][222][223]} on the issue of the Indian release date in the infobox between 16 and 19 November. Talk:All We Imagine as Light#India release date is clear evidence that in addition to making reverts, he/she has used the article talk page to discuss the issue with you and Jon698. My advice is that if he/she continues reverting over that issue, then go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And if he/she does not, then the problem has solved itself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018

EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk · contribs · count) uploaded a number of low quality images on Commons. When a DR (Commons' version of FfD) was opened for those files, the user started replacing currently in use files on this and other projects with their [lower quality/less relevant] ones, then suggesting the files they just removed be deleted instead of their own uploads. We take a dim view of that on Commons and Yann, a fellow Commons admin, blocked them on that project for two weeks, but since a lot of the recent edits are here, I figured I'd let the admins here know and let y'all decide if it warrants a block here as well. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)