Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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

I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.

For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [1] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]
10. [11]
11. [12]
12. [13]
13. [14]
14. [15]
15. [16]
16. [17]
17. [18]
18. [19]
19. [20]
20. [21]
21. [22]
22. [23]
23. [24]
24. [25]
25. [26]

Recently, a user voiced their concern [27] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [28]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [29]. Other recent examples are these [30] [31] [32] [33]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [34].

Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As already explained [35] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [36], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.

Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Artistic creation was indeed a central part of Badr al-Din Lu'lu''s rule, see: "Another notable figure is Badr al-Din Lu'lu (d. 1259), a ruler of Mosul who was recognized for his patronage of the arts." in Evans, Helen C. (22 September 2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0. or "Badr al - Din Lulu ( 1210-59 ), first as vizier of the last Zengids and then as an independent ruler, brought stability to the city, and the arts flourished. Badr al-Din Lulu himself actively supported the inlaid metalwork industry in his capital." in Ward, Rachel (1993). Islamic Metalwork. British Museum Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7141-1458-3. To be complete, an article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' indeed has to be in great part about art, except if you want to create an article such as "Art of Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu'lu', but I would tend to think this is unnecessary, as long as we can describe his artistic contributions in sufficient detail in the main article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a ruler to be a patron of arts, doesn't mean that their article have to become a Commons article. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.

[37] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.

[38] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.

[39] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.

[40] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.

[41] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source

[42] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question

[43] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:

• Guidetti, Mattia (2017). "7 - The 'Islamicness' of Some Decorative Patterns in the Church of Tigran Honents in Ani". Architecture and landscape in medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 170–177. ISBN 9781474411301.
• Blessing, Patricia (8 March 2017). Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-4744-1130-1.
• Ghazarian, Armen; Ousterhout, Robert (2001). "A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages". Muqarnas. 18: 141–154. doi:10.2307/1523305. ISSN 0732-2992.
• Maranci, Christina (14 September 2018). The Art of Armenia: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-19-026901-2.
• Eastmond, Antony (1 January 2017). Tamta's World: The Life and Encounters of a Medieval Noblewoman from the Middle East to Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. p. 297. doi:10.1017/9781316711774.011. The most obvious architectural form that was adopted in Armenian churches was the muqarnas vault. A fine example is the complex muqarnas that was used to build up the central vault of the zhamatun at Harichavank, which was added to the main church in the monastery by 1219. The origin of this type of vaulting clearly comes from Islamic sources, but it is used very differently here.

Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to bring forward some information about some interesting but little known Armenian churches such as the Bagnayr Monastery, the Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) or Astvatsankal Monastery. At first, it seemed that Virtual ANI was about the only source on some aspects of these churches. Although it is not strictly RS, Virtual ANI turned out to be a fairly good source of information, and is also used as a source by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute. I agree it's not ideal though, it was more a way to start up these articles as I was researching them in the first few days, which I should probably have done in a Sandbox instead. I have since replaced the references with proper WP:RS sources, which, to be fair, have all confirmed the information initially obtained from Virtual ANI. In general, the existence of Seljuk influences on Armenian art is a well-known fact, including muqarnas etc... and is referenced per the above, among a multitude of other sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You should have started out with something like this comment, rather than ignoring KhndzorUtogh diffs and attacking them, not until after you've been criticized further. Moreover, Virtual ANI is still being used in some of the articles [44] [45]. Whether it's a well known fact or not is irrelevant, we still need to cite WP:RS, you should know this by now, you've been here for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I have not added a single "Virtual ANI" reference to the Ani article since the time I first started editing this article 3 months ago: the dozens of Virtual Ani references in the article have been there for years (including when you yourself edited the article) and were added by different users. As for Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), I removed the two remaining references I had added [46]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's my bad regarding Ani then, should have checked it more properly (see? I immediately apologized for my mistake. I didn't ignore it, double down or started attacking you). And thanks for removing the last Virtual Ani citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.

I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [47] [48]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [49]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [50]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [51]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have much time, so I will just note that while I have previously thought Pataliputra needs to cool it with the images, they are—let's be honest—about as biased as any of us in the minefield of Central/West/South Asian topics. I would oppose any sanction that goes further than restrictions on image-adding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  A restriction for image-adding was what I initially would support too. However, with Pataliputra's evasion of the evidence presented here, I support harsher restrictions. Otherwise, they will no doubt continue with their conduct, as they have already done for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly don't see much evidence presented. Diffs like [52] and [53] are nothingburgers, not worth escalating to demanding a broad topic ban. The brouhaha about Talk:India has no relevance to the proposed ban on Central Asian/Turkic topics. Pataliputra and I often don't get along, but this is too far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, the reason I put a DNAU in several days is to avoid the thread getting suddenly archived by either lack of comments or the DNAU suddenly expiring. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeated

ass

Persians

• Also, there is evidence of years of WP:OR and image spamming, as well as repeated WP:ASPERSIONS in this thread. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Does Pataliputra's personal attack ("hurt some Armenian sensitivities") merit a sanction on its own? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment. Northern Moonlight 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment retracted, and apologies if anyone felt offended. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again ("your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences"). This user seems to have a history of making xenophobic comments and pestering and harassing other users, having been warned previously. Some past examples:

• "An actual Indian"
• "The 'Society' paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society?"
• "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country"

Pataliputra was also warned by an admin to drop this argument because the images weren't undue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect any user like me with 7 years and about 70,000 edits on this site will encounter some conflictual situation at some point... your so-called "history of ... pestering and harassing other users" refers to a single event back from 2017, and was a defensive statement by a notoriously difficult user who has long left the site... My request for an "An actual Indian" for an illustration on the India page dated back to 2020 and was in reaction to an underage American kid wearing an Indian garment being used as an illustration in that article. In the end, that image was removed from the article by the very same Admin you mention, so I guess I was not all that wrong. And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour. And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.

...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [54].

And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.

Which you just attempted here against KhndzorUtogh (who merely called you out for obvious WP:OR) and it backfired. Be mindful of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to call into question what you call "clean up"... [55]: you are replacing contemporary images of actual Seljuk rulers by an image of a tomb, which would better fit in the page of an individual ruler, and worse, an anachronistic (15th century) French miniature with not an ounce of verisimilitude to the actual Seljuks. These are not improvements. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Beggars can't be choosers, you very well know that contemporary images for specific events are hard to find for this period. At least they're related to the topic, which is what matters. You (amongst other things) added the image of the last Seljuk ruler to the section of the first Seljuk ruler for crying out loud (which I replaced with the tomb of the first Seljuk ruler, be my guest if you can find a better and actual relevant image). And all those images I removed were conveniently uploaded by you. Your reply further proves that your edits in terms of image adding are not constructive. You should read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture" It is amazing how you continue casting aspersions in every new comment explaining/apologizing for the former incident of casting aspersions. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would certainly support a restriction on any image-adding; the apparent aspersions being cast freely and OR (or at least uncited) edits lead me to come very close to supporting a stronger restriction, but if i AFG i hope/guess/think that a smaller restiction will help him realise the inappropriateness of some of his actions and edit more appropriately. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think Pataliputra better be topic-banned from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. Or even more topics based on provided diffs; e.g. Armenian and Caucasus. There are similar edits to his edits on Saka. For example, on Kushan Empire, Puduḫepa removed Pataliputra's addition,[56] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[57] ignoring Puduḫepa's concern and the content of article. Pataliputra's edits led to Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 2#UNDUE and speculative content. If you read the discussion, you see there were more questionable edits by him. Another example is Ghurid dynasty. Original research and unsourced edit[58] which was reverted[59] by HistoryofIran. Pataliputra has good edits for sure, but in this case he needs 6-month to 1-year vacation. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• You will note that I have long been one of the main contributors to the Kushan Empire article. When an unknown user comes around and deletes referenced material, we usually immediately restore the material. If disagreements persist, we naturally continue on the Talk Page. In this case, we agreed to leave aside the Turkic hypothesis (mainly stemming from the Rajatarangini account describing the Kushans as Turushka (तुरुष्क)) since the modern sources were weak.
• The fact that the Turkic language was in use in the Ghurid dynasty and the succeeding Delhi Sultanate is neither original research nor unsourced (you will find more references in the body of the article). We removed it from the infobox because, arguably, it was mainly a military phenomenon, but it was in extensive use nonetheless. Please see Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Allen Lane. pp. 48-49. ISBN 978-0713995824.:

"What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather distorted version of what truly happened at Talk:Kushan Empire. Just checked that discussion - you were using poor sources, just like how you are doing today. You only agreed to not keep it only after you were called by several users several times. As for the Ghurids; that quote does still not justify that you added unsourced information back then (it's honestly quite baffling you can't see this, we've LITERALLY just been through this in regards to the diffs posted by KhndzorUtogh, just don't add unsourced info, it's really simple). And I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate by that quote, this still doesn't prove that Turkic had an administrative role military wise, it merely demonstrates that Persian secretaries had to learn Turkic to cooperate with the Turkic slaves, who also formed a ruling class. In other words, you are engaging in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH again - I also support a topic-ban from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is again a mis-representation: this fact about the usage of the Turkish language in India was actually already sourced from Eaton in the Ghurid dynasty article ("Culture" paragraph [60]), and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere" [61]. As for the role of the Turkish language in the Ghurid dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate, this was more I believe a matter of Persian secretaries having to learn Turkish in order to communicate better with their Turkic rulers. For example:

"Fakhr-i Mudabbir's remarks draw our attention to the linguistic and cultural distance between the lords and the members of the realm they governed, so much so that Persian-speaking secretaries -"the grandees of the highest pedigree"- had to master a "foreign" language to function as their subordinates. (...) So remarks like those of Madabbir refer to the advantages that knowledge of the Turkish language conferred upon a Persian subordinate in the service of the Delhi Sultanate."

— Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

...Except Turkic being an administrative language military wise is not sourced in the culture section, so the one doing the misrepresentation is still you. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "Turkic being an administrative language military wise" is your own expression, and is a bit too specific. My only claim (if my memory serves me) was that Turkic was one of the current languages of the Ghurids, especially among the military [62] ("men of the sword", and later among the ruling elite of the Delhi Sultanate), which is exactly what Eaton says throughout (the two sources above, among many others available). On the contrary your blanking and edit summary [63] seems to deny any role for Turkic, and misrepresents Persian as being the only language around, which goes against academic sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's literally what I said even back then along with more; "While the military was seemingly mostly Turkic by the late Ghurid period, that doesn't seem to have been the case in the early and if not mid Ghurid times. Regardless, that doesn't mean that Turkic had any role/status military wise.". So where is the part where I'm denying any role for Turkic and saying Persian is the only language? More WP:ASPERSIONS, you clearly didn't learn from your experience just with KhndzorUtogh (also, this is not the first time you have made WP:ASPERSIONS against me, eg [64]). Turkic slave soldiers speaking Turkic (shock!) means that that the language had a status in the Ghurid system? With your WP:SYNTH logic, we should starting adding "Turkic" to the infobox of about every medieval Middle Eastern dynasty (including the Abbasid Caliphate) due to the popularity and power of Turkic slaves, perhaps "North Germanic" to the Byzantine Empire due to the Varangian Guard, Persian to the Abbasid Caliphate due to their Persian bureaucracy and so on. I'll try to avoid to responding too much to your comments, I feel like there is more than enough evidence to warrant a topic ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

The diffs provided above show that Pataliputra has repeatedly made original research and synthesis edits, and made personal attacks and casting aspersions even after being told to stop doing so. Multiple users have acknowledged the need for a topic ban and/or other sanctions. I propose a 6-month to 1-year topic ban for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) from Central Asian, Iranic, Turkic, Armenian, and Caucasus articles and a restriction on any image-adding. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a general topic ban as the evidence provided has been weak. Would support a restriction on image-adding, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Frenchprotector29

Frenchprotector29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [65]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [66] [67] [68] [69] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They have continued disruptively editing as can be seen with this edit. I think a block is warranted if they don't heed any warnings and repeat the same mistakes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and recently here too, removing sourced info [70]. They are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

They are also misusing WP:RS [71], and have made long term edit warring at Siege of Krujë (1467) [72] [73] [74] [75]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

They're still edit warring.. [76]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Now they're also creating copyvio articles [77] [78], and even despite that they still look poor. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:SPA here solely to push an agenda. Blocking is certainly warranted in this case.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Another day, another WP:NOTHERE. Too busy with their SP quest, so they have no time to respond to this ANI report. Should be indef-blocked already. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this user should be indef-blocked as per WP:NOTHERE. I hope this doesn't fly under the radar so that the admins respond accordingly. Botushali (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple issues with Researcher1988 at Zoroastrianism

I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.

These issues have included: Edit warring: [79] [80] [81] [82] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [83] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [84] [85] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [86] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to protect the page From vandals. I have provided various Materials to the page and made positive and constructive edits.

the problem is with one particular user who is relatively new, has little knowledge of Zoroastrianism and yet, wants to edit the article according to his personal interpretations.

this debate is ongoing for 4 months now. the user doesn't accept the sources we provided, and persistently wants to edit the page in a way that fits his own personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I should note that the "vandal" in question is a third party they are involved in an edit conflict with and has categorically not vandalized the page in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

with all respect, what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."

the user tried to add misinformation and materials not supported by sources to the page in order to change the materials to his own liking.

It is 4 months now that this conflict continues. I just wanted to prevent this from happening and protect the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No consensus so I'd just let it go, especially since this argument has been going on for four months. Suggesting a close and a move back to Talk:Zoroastrianism. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this? I would, but I don't know how. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You should not considering we now can add canvassing to this issue. [94] [95] Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's... Not good. And here I was thinking this would end quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sincerely I don't lightly take edit conflicts to AN/I. This is rather a user who is becoming a constant time sink with antics like this while describing specific other good-faith editors as vandals. If it were merely a heated edit conflict I would not bring it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just seeking help from other editors, so we can end the dispute sooner. is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Researcher1988 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS is clear that you cannot go to other specific editors and ask them to resolve a content dispute in your favour - doing that while someone has an open AN/I thread about you is also just rather ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I never wanted them to vote in favor of me. it is not about me, it is about a discussion which involves many. I just thought the dispute would end sooner, by calling other users attention. I didn't know It would make a problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This diff [96] is precisely what you should not do. And this is the problem - you are taking up a lot of time for us explaining, at length, don't do this, don't do that, and your clear strident POV on the topic is exacerbating this. I have suggested before you take time away from this topic and develop your skills elsewhere. This is still what I think you need to do as this is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we seek a way to solve the problem in the talk page? I don't think the problem is complicated. as I said, It is not about me. I'm just concerned about the misinformation in the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As you've said, the debate has lasted for four months already, and has resulted in an ANI discussion, so I doubt it. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, those are newbie mistakes, how about Skyerise, a veteran user with 100+K edits who reverts a stable version of the article on shaky grounds while there was no consensus for that version ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that we should not (yet) commit to calling Zoroastrian monotheistic. However, the so-called "stable" version does just that, so it violates that consensus. Which I've explained on the talk page with summary counts, etc. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The diffs you are providing can also apply to other editors at that talk page, I underlined several times personal attacks towards me and WP:POINT, WP:ONUS, WP:CON issues there.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the consensus is that the page should be neutral on the matter of monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

[97] At this point should we just notify any other involved editors at Zoroastrianism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoever is the subjective of what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism." should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that might be a few of us by this point. I think. He's certainly aimed it at me a fair few times. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask Simonm223 and Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me, this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Gladly, if I comment further on this it will only be in the context of presenting new diffs. I would prefer not to engage in more back-and-forth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

well, I believe that User (which I accuse of Vandalism), has turned the dispute into a personal one. whenever I post some Information on the talk page, he shows up and posts something irrelevant and repeats his older opinions.

In this case, I created a Topic for discussing a matter with another user. but he showed up and posted some irrelevant comment. I decided to delete his comment, since my post was meant for someone else.

I believe these experienced editors are taking sides and their behavior is unfair. what is interesting for me is that they never blamed the other side, who is deliberately continuing this dispute for 4 month (despite various sources presented to refute him,) and his behavior is in my opinion some kind of trolling. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 If you would explain your reasoning (on the page) instead of telling me your beliefs, it would be a lot easier for us to discuss things & reach some sort of middle ground. As it is; I have been trying to engage with you about your sources, and the ways in which they contradict you, but you haven't really been willing to engage back. This makes it very hard to see your point of view, as you will state a thing as true (or quote someone stating it) but not explain why it is true. Without knowing the 'why', there is no possibility of agreement because the 'why' is the part I need to hear in order to agree. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:

• Attempting to start an WP:EDITWAR with every other editor on the page. Including yesterday, with Simonm223, Skyerise, and myself. Tactics include: !) straight-up undoing, 2) dumping the other person's edits into a section far deeper down the page, 3) Simply editing their edits out of existence while making their own edits. In functional terms: Every single edit we make to the article, no matter how minor, is either reverted or buried by Researcher1988. This includes purely aesthetic aesthetic edits - such as adding titles to various sections in the Theology section, which Researcher1988 quickly and silently removed. And did so twice, if I recall. Researcher1988 seems to feel they WP:OWN the page in question, and that only their own WP:POV and vision should be allowed. I have been 'Told Off' and reverted by Researcher1988 for even attempting to correct the grammar of a section they have edited, which is essentially the entire article. Meanwhile they freely edit my content, and shuffle it about the page at will. Usually burying it in a far deeper section than I intended.
• Even attempting to add a direct quote from one of Researcher1988's own list of approved sources into the page will be instantly reverted if the quote happens to Researcher1988's own beliefs. This is clear WP:CHERRYPICKING. Typically their excuse it that there is "no consensus" & that I am "misinterpreting" the source. For example, my edit on 07:47, 15 April 2024 added a very direct quote from Mary Boyce - who is on their personal approved list. This was was swiftly reverted at 07:47, 15 April 2024 saying "Undid the edit; first we should reach a consensus; besides the sources doesn't support the claim.". I was, in fact, acting on the recent talk page vote - which came down very hard on the side of neutrality on the issue. When I undid the undo, explaining it was a direct quote, they undid it again. I then ceased in order to avoid an WP:EDITWAR - something Researcher1988 has been warned about in the past. This is typically how Researcher1988 gets their way on the page - by simply forcing the other person to break a rule in order to fight back. I feel this is another version of WP:STONEWALL.
• Almost as soon as I began trying to edit the page, Researcher1988 started their regular accusations of vandalism against me and other members. Not to mention insults and combative (rather than constructive) behaviour. One of his primary complaints being that we are editing the text that is 'already there' - by which he means his own. Which he regards as 'perfect'. You can see a prime example here. I think this goes against WP:BITE.
• This is part of Reasercher1988's ongoing and massive campaign of spam & disruption the Talk page, under the guise of 'correcting' or 'calling out' other members about rule breaches. This behaviour has destroyed multiple votes created by Reasercher1988 themselves. Typically by derailing them the instant someone posts a vote they don't like. You can see this in action here, where Reasercher1988 launches a consensus and then tries to debate me the second I vote. That debate looks small now, but it was originally so large I had to split it off into this section here, which is itself huge, in order to try and preserve the vote. They then launched another vote where they did it again. Firstly by making the intro to the vote a massive list of their own personally approved sources, in an effort to sway the voters, then immediately debating with everyone who objected. This got so bad I was forced to create a parred down copy-paste of the vote - minus the debate - purely in order to keep track of it & make it readable. Reasercher1988 saw this only as an opportunity to start yet another copy of the same exact debate, even though I purposefully removed all the reasoning posted with each vote in order to avoid provoking him. As you might imagine, this kind of behaviour makes it very difficult to use the talk page at all. I believe this to be WP:STONEWALL in order to enforce WP:POV, at the very least. Reasercher1988 may demand 'consensus', but they operate entirely without it and disrupt all attempts to achieve it.
• Multiple times Reasercher1988 has posted copies of that same massive list of personally approved sources on the page - which is itself spamming. Both here and also here. They seem to do this as form of stonewalling. This tactic, combined with their endless arguing against everything, makes it incredibly frustrating to engage with anyone on the page. The clutter is getting so bad, I would like to archive most of the page.
• Overall Researcher1988 refuses to engage in proper discussion, and will simply state and restate their opinion without addressing any of the problems raised. This makes speaking to them, itself, very infuriating.

There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I had reason for Every edit and revert that I made. why you continued this debate for 4 months? why you don't get the point and refuse to accept various reliable sources who refute your claims? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Your own sources conflict with your views, and mine are reliable. If you would like to discuss why, please send me a talk page message. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is bordering being a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT considering this has been going on for 4 months without resolution. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope I'm not guilty of that, but I admit it's possible. I do feel it's happening the other way, however. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'd Support a topic ban on Researcher1988 from Zoroastrianism, broadly construed, with the standard offer available once they've edited elsewhere to demonstrate they can edit without WP:OWNership issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Throwing a Support behind that as well. Maybe also take a look through the article and the Talk page and see what can be done there to make the article better. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Keeping in mind I'm someone who has engaged in this content dispute a considerable amount, I would also support a topic ban per HandThatFeeds's formulation. Remsense诉 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support for banning the user for multiple reasons.

Not only did the user misgendered me three times with several Users pointing out that this is impolite, they also violated several guidlines and trust.

The user started an edit war with multiple users stating that they have been putting undue weight to their position, just for their own source to turn out barely to not support their view at all. Furthermore, it has become clear from the talkpage (I cannot find the exact version difference in this chaos anymore but it is possible to find by the search function) that there was probably religious motivation (maybe a form of neo-Zorastrianism comprable to Neo Tengrism insisting on being monotheistic) behind their edits, as they said that

"I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic."

Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered.

Thus, there is little to no evidence for remorse, and accordingly, little hope the user will improve their behaviour. Their behaviour is unbearable for other Users, frustrating and time-consueming for no good reasons or benefits. On the long-term Wikipedia profites more from banning the user entirely. Furthermore, it seems imperative to make clear that Wikipedia Users are not the playball for frustrated indidivuals who just want to see their opinions, here. Not deleting them could encourage bad behaviour in near future on other article talkpages as well, causing talkpages to deteriorate to the level of a WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Zoroastrianism is called "Mazdayasna" "Mazda Worshiper" by Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians believe in one god. modern Zoroastrians consider themselves Monotheistic. there is a scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and Religious Dualism is a variation of monotheism too.

this user completely ignores all reliable sources which clearly state Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, and insists on his personal opinions which are not supported by any of the academic sources:

"In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."

https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

and insists on his personal opinions

oopsie VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That deserves emphasis as an ancillary point. I usually think it's best to be patient with people on this particular point—but we have been. Researcher has been directly asked several times not to refer to VFF as 'he'. That they continue to do so without even acknowledging the requests is getting to be a sanctionable problem in itself, I would argue. Remsense诉 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

INCLUSIVENESSWE REALLY DIG ITSO PLEASE DON'T BEAN EFFING BIGOTBurma-shave I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am usually a User avoiding conflict, but if you keep on this attitude, you find yourself here again for WP:HARASS and WP:PA for spreading lies about me constantly and intentional misgendering, in case you will not be deleted entirely, which would be the (appropriate decission). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 You have been shown evidence that is not correct, and that the status of the religion is highly debated, but you have ignored it so far. Including evidence from your own sources that say it changed & evolved. If you would like to talk about it, I will be on the article's talk page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support a topic ban for all the above reasons which add up to WP:NOTHERE. I've been waiting to see if the editor would listen to others, but we also have a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem with this editor as well. Disclosure: I am involved, but this is not one of my usual topic areas. Skyerise (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that Researcher1988 continues to refuse to assume good faith and makes personal attacks accusing other editors of "hating" his religion, views Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND using terms like "infiltrated" and is engaged in canvassing: [98]. Can't something please be done about this? Skyerise (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise I don't even know what his religion is tbh. But isn't he in the middle of trying to attack multiple other religions, right from the first part of the lead of the article? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: well, I'm assuming from behavior that its some small modern sect of Zoroastrianism which considers itself monotheisitic and teaches its members that Zoroastrianism "has always been monotheistic". Skyerise (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise That could well be the case. I've been reading and comparing a few different versions of the Avesta, and there's something very odd going on with the translations. I get the sense that they're trying very hard to make it look like other religions. It's really strange. 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• We are also seeing a continuation of the POV pushing behaviour. These edits are not supported by the sources presented. [99] [100]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Starting to think we need a full block to make this user understand that we have rules blocking this kind of stuff. I'd support a block for at least a couple months, if not longer. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 13:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, despite multiple editors encouraging them to edit elsewhere, Researcher1988 has not shown any indication of having any interest of editing on any other topic. I'm not sure if there would be any functional difference between a t-ban and a block at this point so, despite my initial advocacy for a t-ban I'm pretty much neutral on this. The misgendering issue is certainly alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also I don't believe this personal attack has been brought to attention yet. This is an escalating situation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't entirely see how this fit as a personal attack, but it does show that this is escalating. My bones are sensing there's gonna be threats, and soon. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Whoops, more canvassing (at least it seems like it to me, trout me if I'm wrong) [101] I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  That was identified by Skyerise earlier today up-thread. Also the editor in question is an involved editor who they see as an ally. This editor is perfectly aware of the situation and was one of the first to comment at AN/I when I opened this thread and has rather publicly announced taking a break from that article space. I don't think it really constitutes canvassing although it speaks toward as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Based on various talk page discussions I read, Researcher1988 seems to be firmly convinced that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, often dismissing alternative scholarly interpretations that suggest dualistic or polytheistic elements. His approach in discussions appears to be quite inflexible, hindering collaborative editing. A one month topic ban should encourage the correct conduct. FailedMusician (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban : I think that Researcher1988 should not be topic banned, they are a knowledgeable editor about that topic, they tried to provide sources but in my humble opinion, some other editors seem to show ownership and refuse to go by what our best sources say, trying to contradict said best sources with weaker ones.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikaviani While I am remaining neutral on the solution to this, Researcher1988 has been highly combative and is the definition of WP:OWN and WP:POV. Especially in their: 1) attempts to keep controversial WP:FRINGE theories in the lead 2) Their obstructiveness, edit warring, and refusal to engage 3) Misrepresentation of sources 4) Double standards about source quality 6) Smears & baseless accusations against other editors. 7) Cherry-picking parts of sources, but refusing to acknowledge others. 8) Shoving anything that they can't revert to the bottom of the page 9) Aggression and anger over people editing grammar or adding purely visual changes, which they also revert. 10) Telling people they're mispresenting sources they are directly quoting. I could absolutely go on. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I see, my opinion is that a flock of editors came there at Talk.Zoroastrianism recently (canvassing ?) and while many of those users are veteran editors, I was quite baffled to see how they kept ignoring such basic rules as WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STABLE, WP:CON and so on. I don't agree that you are neutral, you were the first one to refuse to get the point. Again, you guys want to own that article ? Granted, but Researcher1988 does not deserve to be topic banned because they are a knowledgeable editor for that topic, probably much more than tkose who label Zoroastrianism as "Polytheistic" no matter if this contradicts what our best sources say. As I said, I'm out, I'm not intereseted in discussing this matter with some editors who obviously refuse to respect the above guidelines.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record it was actually Researcher1988 who brought me to the page. Specifically they went to WP:RS/N and were asking evasive questions about the reliability of sources from Academia.edu that were somewhat concerning. I decided to look in on the Zoroastrianism page on the basis of those concerns and found a mess. And your assertion that a bloc of editors want to label Zoroastrianism as "Polytheistic" is incorrect. The consensus on page, largely excluding Researcher1988 and yourself, is that Zoroastrianism cannot be labeled as either polytheistic or as monotheistic in Wikipedia voice as there is too much conflict within the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact here's the archive link to the discussion that led to my involvement in Zoroastrianism. As you can see I was not canvassed. [102] Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's all the point, there is no debate as far as I've seen when we only look at the best sources about that topic, lie Bomati or Kellens. I'm not interested in discussing this matter again and again, as I already said several times and this noticeboard is not the place for that either.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Large consensus" excluding me and Researcher1988 ? then this is not a consensus, especially when, if I'm not mistaken, you guys have not been able to provide a single expert source that supports your claims and contradict the 3 expert sources I provided at Talk.Zoroastrianism ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(canvassing ?)

Provide any evidence or strike this. Remsense诉 18:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikivaini We have provided multiple sources indicating there is no consensus. We emailed an expert on Zoroastrianism about it, too. Most of the sources you've provided are old, and in French. Not really a good fit for determining the current view. The page was very clear that neutrality is the way to go. I feel neutrality improves every article, honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I should note there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using French sources and, in fact, I'm literate in French and can review French sources. However, on the other hand, WP:AGEMATTERS. Also content discussions would best be settled at article talk. We should be trying to restrict the scope of AN/I discussion to behavioral issues. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223Well, that is indeed helpful. Though I feel an article should be based on sources in the reader's language so they are not blocked out. Though I feel that @Wikaviani may be reversing and misrepresenting things somewhat. If they would like, I can point them to multiple examples of Reasercher1988 engaging in edit wars, & warnings given for such. As well as WP:OWN. I find it strange to be accused of WP:OWN when, for four months, I wasn't even 'allowed' to fix grammar or make aesthetic edits by you two. We have good sources that show there is a lack of consensus on this issue, and I feel that's enough to counter your older sources. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin review requested

Would an admin be willing to have a look at the clear consensus here and formalize it please? Those of us editing the page would like to move on with the cleanup work on the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm no admin, and I'm not prepared to {{nac}} this one, but since you have been waiting almost a week for a response to this, I can at least give you my take on what I am seeing on that talk page.

For the record, I have no previous involvement in the relevant discussions, editorial history in the affected articles, or even previous engagement with any of the involved parties, as far as I can recall. But for whatever it's worth to anyone involved, I do have a fair degree of familiarity with the subject matter. I've long had a fascination with the historical phenomena of those various cosmological traditions positing a dualistic relationship between a broader creation in which a bounded physical world nests--typically presided over by some variation of a demiurge or other chief advisory of escape from that world by spiritual means. Zoroastrianism is a part of that vaguely-defined historical current and synchronsitic network of beliefs and cultural memetics, of course. However, the bulk of my comments will be directed towards the policy considerations here, rather than making particular arguments about these relationships, as is appropriate for ANI.

Just to be clear though, I did review most of the content on the talk page and follow up on the basic corpus of the sources being utilized, and history of recent versions of the article. And to be honest, I found there to be a fair bit of binary thinking from both camps here. The larger camp is showing a little more flexibility and restraint, it is worth saying--but the gap isn't huge and there's a whole lot of trying to finesse more definitive support for one side of an artificially dichotomous distinction out of sources that seem to me to be showing a maximal and intentional emphasis on the uncertainty of certain facts. For example, the exact relationship between Zoroastrianism and other cosmologies that it cross-pollinated with.

This isn't as difficult as the polarized discussion on Talk:Zoroastrianism in recent threads seems to suggest it is. In situations like this, WP:Attribute, introduce the reader to the various interpretations and any statements in RS about any uncertainties and open issues, including limited direct quotes if necessary, and let the reader reach their own conclusions. This analysis is, I felt time and again reviewing those discussions, getting over-complicated in a fairly large percentage of the comments in the recent discussions on that page. I respect that there are also some legitimate WP:WEIGHT questions also being asked here, but I don't see that it's reasonable not to make reference to the relationship between Zoroastrianism and its contemporary (and possibly decedent) belief systems. So the question is how you define those relationships. And where there are so many theories (which the secondary sources themselves go to lengths to describe as uncertain), that very dispute is exactly what policy directs to be discussed for the reader's benefit.

Now, is that due content for the lead? Well, again, I would suggest that is not as cut and dry as either side holds. On the one hand, all things being equal, the content of the lead is meant to roughly map to a subtopic's overall weight and importance in the main body of the article. But for a topic like this, establishing historical context is a big part of the overall role of the lead, and I think it roughly aligns with the average reader's needs/benefits to point out that these relationships between theological traditions exist, even if the exact chronology/directionality is likely to be left permanently obscured in the historical record. But primarily I feel like there must be some reasonable compromise here.

I have similar feelings about the "polytheistic" (and other contested labels) debate. I mean, y'all realize these are religious cosmologies, not physical cosmology, right? As in, some subjectivity is to be anticipated, even among highly relevant primary and secondary sources? Yes, I get that certain labels have higher degrees of academic cache among subject matter experts. Equally though, it's entirely reasonable that both academic and idiomatic descriptions are going to borrow from a wide array of reference points.

Look, I get that my comments are somewhat reductionist on the debates being had on that talk page: there's some nuance to a number of the questions being raised there about what is WP:DUE. But my main observation is that there is a noticeable amount of middleground between the two clear camps that is currently going unexplored. Yes, one side is in the substantial minority and is perhaps being a little more tendentious in their approach. But on the whole, wouldn't say anyone is walking away with the gold prize for open-mindedness on that talk page just at the moment. Just an outsider's read. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I would also add that this discussion, at Talk.Zoroastrianism, is certainly not the best I've been involved in so far. While I am probably a bit guilty I don't think that I'm the only one, whatever "side" one would consider. That's why I suggested (and still suggest) a full protection of the article and an admin revert to a stable version of the article. I tried to restore an old version of the article but was reverted on quite a shaky ground and with no consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No that revert was supported by article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise Thank you for your time. I view it as a movement that has evolved over the historical period, and I agree it isn't clear cut.

@Wikaviani To put that in other words: you acted without consensus to impose a version of the article that contains WP:FRINGE and contested theories in the lead. I'm happy for that part to be placed in a 'controversial' section, along with a discussion concerning the influence of those other groups on Zoroastrianism, but it certainly doesn't belong up there. It seems especially WP:POV to put it at the tope, and not to balance it against the range of contrary evidence contained even within the article itself. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I acted in compliance with WP:STABLE, trying to restore a stable version of the article untill a consensus is found. Sounds like you guys ignore that the onus is on you to achieve consensus for your changes. Please keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani A vote that is evenly split is a vote for neutrality on the topic. Not a vote for your particular side. To say anything else is to weight the vote in your favour. WP:STABLE is quite clear that it is simply about vandalism, and "is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute." The current version of the article is stable, and entirely the product of consensus. I should be clear that this is a compromise on our behalf, and I hope you see it a such. In my mind, the evidence is very clearly on our side - and I'm sure you feel the same way. So lets meet in the middle? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29

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

---

Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.

There are the principles of discussion on talk pages of Wikipedia, such as Communicate (WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE), Stay on topic (WP:TALK#TOPIC), Be positive (WP:TALK#POSITIVE), Be polite, Make proposals (WP:TALK#PROPOSE), etc., that the user User:AirshipJungleman29 did not follow.

I am not competent in interpreting Wikipedia rules, therefore I ask for help. Let me describe the situation so that you could make a fair conclusion. The discussion was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1219457528&oldid=1219300767 (diff), or see [103].

Generally, User:AirshipJungleman29 engages in a discussion by making an argument but then declines to discuss the argument they made, switching the topic or using subjective terms such as "tedious" to characterize my arguments. If they find my arguments inappropriate or not worth discussing, they should not engage me in a discussion. But if they presented their opinion, they should have respect to my arguments in favour or against their opinion. They should not expect their opinion to be final and indiscussable. They should have respect to the other editors this way.

Specifically, in a Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix I made a proposal to present data in a GA nominees in a user-friendlier manner and gave arguments on what I thought a usability (design) error in presenting the information on counters. Instead of discussing on substance, such as whether the current counters are correctly displayed or they are not, or whether the proposal of me or another user is a correct way do display data; or whether the change the way of displaying data is worth implementing. Instead of discussing the substance, User:AirshipJungleman29 first objected on form, quote: ("Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site"). When I asked User:AirshipJungleman29 to provide an example of this proposal in a form they find proper, they ignored and instead didn't stay on topic but raised a new topic that I and a user which was later blocked violate GA review rules. When I argued against this claim of User:AirshipJungleman29, they again avoided the discussion on substance but threatened me with ANI: "And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI". This is not a constructive way of discussing. If they didn't want any argument from me, they should not engage me in a discussion, but if they did, they should treat my reply with respect - this is in accordance of the "dot not fuel" principle (WP:DENY). By fuelling the discussion in that they do not intend to duly participate, moreover, ANI treats for "tediousness" is an intentionally toxic behaviour that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia talk.

User:AirshipJungleman29 violates the essence of a healthy discussion, which is the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be open to different perspectives and respecting the arguments of others, even if they differ from one's own.

When User:AirshipJungleman29 chooses to characterize my arguments as "tedious" rather than addressing them on their merits, it undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Everyone's contributions or opinions are valuable and deserve to be treated with respect.

Moreover, the use of threats, such as the threat to open a thread at ANI, can create a hostile environment that discourages open discussion. Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation.

The principle of WP:DENY, or "do not fuel", emphasizes the importance of not engaging in unproductive discussions. If User:AirshipJungleman29 does not intend to participate constructively in the discussion, it may be best to disengage and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia in other ways.

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have diffs that aren't 50 diffs in a trench coat? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Special:Diff/1219306898
2. Special:Diff/1219320957
3. Special:Diff/1219383414
4. Special:Diff/1219457019

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

lord love a duck, this is seven hundred and sixteen words long. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost 13 tweets. Levivich (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Quoting statements with diffs: In this discussion, AirshipJungleman29's comments to Maxim Masiutin:

• [104] Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes".
• [105] Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking".
• [106] No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions.
• [107] And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning.

Other editors also disagreed with Maxim's proposal but not with such contempt exasperation. edited to repair my initial word choice which I thought about overnight and decided was overly judgemental. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the friendly presentation of diffs. Your way of presenting situation simply as "other editors also disagreed" is misleading because it was at least one editor who agreed. However, this is not relevant to the ANI since agreements or disagreements are normal process of discussion. My point is that discussions should be made in a proper, friendly and respectful way, on substance, without personal threats and intimidation and and should stay on topic - all the attributes of fruitful communications of Wikipedia violated by User:AirshipJungleman29. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me. Interacting with them tends to leave everyone perpetually irritated and exasperated because of their constant WP:SEALIONing, WP:WALLOFTEXTs, and battleground behaviour. For example:

Examples

from RoySmith: "You are causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of people's time. If you don't [walk away] you will surely end up being blocked." (incidentally, MM took this as a personal attack and demanded an apology) also from Roy: "This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this? from Trainsandotherthings: "You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions." From Premeditated Chaos: "your behavior has now verged into the tendentious and downright cruel. If you persist, I will escalate this to ANI ... Your behavior is the cause of this. You are the one acting disruptive here. You chose to bludgeon that discussion to within an inch of its life, against half a dozen different editors telling you you were wrong. It is ironic to the point of painful that you harp about violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia when you have been doing so" also from PMC: "Fucking hell, man, take a step back and realize that every single person who has responded to you here has disagreed in one way or another with your interpretation of the criteria. You are the one who's in the wrong. You have been the entire time, and all the walls of text in the world are not going to change that." From Firefangledfeathers: "Most of the kbs are yours, and it would help if you could provide briefer responses" (MM subsequently accused FFF of "cherry-picking sources") From Serial Number 54129: "Please consider apologizing for wasting several editors' time."

• If you do, for some reason, want to put yourself through the torturous process of reading MM's comments, a good example can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Understanding of p. 1b of the GA criteria (from which some of the above messages were taken), and the sections underneath it, along with WT:GAN at the moment, where they have contributed over 2,250 words in a day and three hours, EDIT: or their below conversation with asilvering.
• Looking back on it, I should have brought this to ANI a lot sooner, and spent less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that I did omissions in the review process, as demonstrated by the link you gave, but you could address them in a constructive manner without personal attacks. I since that improved and the lasted GA drive demonstrated proper quality of my reviews: Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/March_2024#Maxim_Masiutin. We should not put shame to people who can demonstrate that they can learn. Anyway, please stay focused on your behaviour as it is the essence of this ANI. Even if you think that other editors are wrong (and your position can be indeed justified), please present your position in a respectful way, without violating Wikipedia rules, as you show bad example to the other editors. Please cease and desist of your violations and show good example (which you did not in the link that you gave and the diffs that I gave). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• And once again, you miss the point. I was not demonstrating the poor quality of your reviewing, I was demonstrating the effect you have on other editors. Have you ever heard of a WP:BOOMERANG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that the effect was inappropriate. Still my mistakes can not serve as an excuse for your bad behaviour, please respect the cooperative spirit even if you think somebody is wrong, there are civilized ways to address somebody's wrongness. You show bad example for other editors. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  As for WP:BOOMERANG, you probably mean that there is no "immunity" for reporters. I don't want to seek immunity, if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way and/or take proportional punishment if needed to make lessons -- it should come from competent, calm and uninvolved person. You used of the term "yell" to describe your behaviour as a hint that you were not that person. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Maxim Masiutin, I am one such uninvolved person, and I cannot for the life of me understand what you hope to achieve with this. I was astonished by the responses to you on the GAN talk page here, [108], and wondered what on earth prompted multiple people to respond to you so curtly and rudely about something so minor. Then I found this ANI thread, and now I perfectly understand. @AirshipJungleman29 wasn't very kind when they said Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me, but I have to admit that I agree. More than 700 words to complain that someone was mean to you on the internet! Sealioning indeed. You say if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way, but is that really true? I look at all of the exasperated responses AJ29 brought to this thread. Have they changed your behaviour? Do you know why people are annoyed with you? -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You raised a good point. Let us try to reconsider the old good rule of not fueling the discussion in which you don't like to participate. If you give an argument, be respectful for a counter-argument. If you don't have stamina to take a counter-argument with respect, simply avoid the discussion. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously, does anyone else have any idea what he's on about? I have no clue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please answer my questions? -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, let no one say I didn't try. -- asilvering (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• AirshipJungleman used some rather blunt language that I would have suggested rewording, but it was not unwarranted. Maxim's accusations about failing to properly engage are unfounded, and these drawn out sealioning arguments that say nothing of substance are standard for Maxim. This is not the first time that he has been a timesink at WT:GAN, as Airship's examples show. Particularly telling is this post in which he blames others for his own misunderstanding of process before criticizing the block of a wikifriend over similar behavior, comparing the block to a wrongful execution by hanging that occurred in 1882. At a minimum, there needs to be a ban from the Good Article process for Maxim Masiutin, though I would not fault anyone for saying that there are broader CIR issues present. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I found working with User:Maneesh and User:BeingObjective immensely beneficial, until their unexpected for me but indefinite ban/block. I view this action as unjust because of disproportionality, likening it to an irreversible mistake, as their absence is permanent and we can no longer seek their input. While I found our collaboration to be positive and effective, other editors strongly disagreed, resulting in indefinite sanctions. The starkly contrasting opinions on User:Maneesh and User:BeingObjective reveal the critical role of compatibility among Wikipedia editors, a puzzle I am yet to decipher. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• The sealioning is absolutely out of control with this guy. If he's a troll, he's one of the most dedicated I've ever seen. But I think it's more likely he is just really like this, and if that's the case he's not compatible with the project. Block him. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• AirshipJungleman29 was uncivil, and should probably take that on board, along the lines of "less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work". However, I presume these reactions emerged not from this one post but from long-term frustration with similar behaviour. I would not disagree with Thebiguglyalien's assertion that "it was not unwarranted". Maxim Masiutin should wind back on their lengthy posts and examine their discussion style. CMD (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will practice in Wikipedia:TLDR to get better. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead. Wow--talk about shooting oneself in the foot when claiming others are the problem. Clearly needs a break from GAN (or it needs a break from them), at the very least. Grandpallama (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  We have to follow the rules including WP:DENY and WP:TALK#TOPIC. The topic is ANI AirshipJungleman29. Let us keep in topic here, don't let the topic drift away. We can also discuss in an appropriate topic, and we have to be watchful. Therefore your analogy of shooting oneself in the foot is inappropriate as it encourages to change the topic in a current discussion rather than creating a new one in violation of WP:TALK#TOPIC - a rule which in my understanding applies to the current discussion as well. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maxim, your understanding is incorrect. Anyone who brings another editor to ANI can expect to have their own conduct scrutinized. You should read WP:OUCH before trying to moderate this discussion any further. You presumably don't mean to come off like this, but I assure you that everyone else is reading your replies as condescending and out-of-touch. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a moderator here who will tell me which questions should I reply? Without the moderator I think that this question is irrelevant to my ANI as they relate to a distant case in the past, not the case I brought up for ANI. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:ANI advice may be helpful, especially points 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 17. I would also recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG, if you did not do so when I linked it above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You mentioned ANI against me in the GA talk page, now I don't understand why you mentioned the essay on boomerang. As for the ANI advice, it tells "don't assume that everyone who comments or gets involved with the matter is an administrator". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You have not tried to understand. I rest my case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can propose a friendly amicable settlement: if you seem that your objections can be settled by my commitment of not participating at all in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for at least a year, I can do so easily. I don't want to escalate conflict, and this page is of no vital importance for me. I want to make as productive environment for writing Wikipedia as possible. If you think that my proposal will serve the goal, please let me know. Still, I am interested on whether your behaviour that I indicated in this ANI was appropriate as an example for the other users to behave the same way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Maxim Masiutin's behaviour is pure sealioning and I think this thread should be closed. As a couple of others above have commented, AirshipJungleman29's language was harsher than needed at times, though I sympathize as Maxim's behaviour is very annoying. (As one's parents used to say, controlling your language when you haven't lost your temper doesn't get you any good behaviour point.). But there's nothing to be gained by extending this thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Maxim Masiutin

Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and editor time is our most valuable resource. The diffs provided by Schazjmd show that Maxim Masiutin has been a major timesink and has already exhausted the patience of numerous editors at WP:GAN. In this thread, even those editors who have been somewhat sympathetic to Maxim Masiutin have still acknowledged that AirshipJungleman29's frustration is both understandable and justified; that feeling of exasperation has expanded to include uninvolved editors participating in this discussion. I propose a 6-month topic ban for Maxim Masiutin from WP:GAN and its talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, with the hope that Maxim Masiutin would use the time away to improve their collaboration skills, and to read some of the links that have been provided in this discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. MM does good work on articles, so he should be allowed to continue to contribute there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am OK with the proposal, and I find it reasonable. I have a few pending GA nominations/reviews, can you not abandon them so I could finish them without new nominations, can I contact you directly if I will have issues such as abandoned review, I promise to be succint? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  As an alternative, I can avoid GA talk for one year as I proposed earlier, but be allowed to finish existing GA reviews or nominate new articles for GA or do GA review without limitation. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  No. If this topic ban is enacted, you must stay away from GA. If you interact with GA, that will be a violation which can result in you being blocked from Wikipedia entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's clear, thank you for the additional caution though. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  If this topic ban is enacted what will happen with the articles that I already nominated or that are being reviewed? My understanding is that editors pointed to my activity in the GA talk page as inappropriate. There were no complaints about my latest GA reviews or GA nominations. My first few GA reviews were bad, but since then I improved I hope. Still, I would be grateful if somebody re-review my latest GA reviews and give me feedback. By the way, what purpose then will serve the ban on reviews and nominations if there are no objections on my behaviour there? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will be unhappy if my GA nominations will be cancelled, as they already stayed in the queue for too long. Can you please review (complete GA reviews in a due manner) them and then ban me? Or handle the GA process by addressing the questions of a reviewer for the articles I nominated? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, User:Phlsph7, User:Fritzmann, User:Femke, User:Ward20, User:The Quirky Kitty, User:Lindsay658, User:Sammi Brie, User:Epicgenius, User:Maplestrip, User:Generalissima! You participated in a GA review process where I was the reviewer. Editors pointed out that my behaviour in the Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations was inappropriate. I sincerely regret about my inappropriate behaviour and even proposed (as a remedy) to abstain from any edit for this page for at least a year to calm down. Additionally, there is a proposal to ban me from Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations for six month, with which I agree, this is justified. Still, this proposal also includes banning me for six months from the GA review process overall, so I will not be able to review or nominate or in any way participate in the GA review process for the article I nominated that are in a backlog. I am willing to improve but sometimes I have no idea how. Since you have first-hand experience in working me on GA review, can you please help and let me know what I did wrong in the review process that I merit to be banned? Your opinion is important for me because after the six months period when I come back to the GA review process I must not commit the same errors again. Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't ping a bunch of uninvolved users to drag them into this. I have no context for this and very much don't like getting involved in ANI stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I asked you whether you can you please help and let me know what I did wrong in the review process. I asked your feedback on my review process. I see that you provided your form of feedback, I understand that you think I should not participate in GA review for at least six month. Thank you for your involvement. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  How you have still not understood that your reviews are not the problem is beyond me Maxim Masiutin. Just read what people are saying, for goodness sake! It really isn't that hard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I understand your point, I wanted to address your attention to a concern that if my reviews are not a problem, why ban me from reviews? Why cannot you only ban me from where there were problems? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am quite curious, I don't remember which GAN/review this is about. I can't quickly find a GA discussion we were both involved in, could you link it for me? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  In Talk:Kentucky Educational Television/GA1 I asked second opinion and you helped. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In composing...

In composing, as a general rule, run your pen through every other word you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give your style.

— Sydney Smith

Maxim Masiutin, You ask how you can improve. Use the "show preview" next time you write something and delete at least 90% of what you have written. You simply write far too much, which is what nearly everyone has been telling you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the best advice I ever received to resolve my issue (apart from stopping contributing). Thank you! I will follow it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like the particular interactions I had with you were problematic. However, this was the first or second GA review I participated in, so I don't know if the feedback was excessively detailed or long-winded, which seems to be one of the problems other editors have. I don't have much to say in this matter because I'm not really involved in the dispute. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support The walls of text and sealioning are pernicious and egregious. In a case like this, where an editor can write content—there seems to be a consensus that they can, and after all that's court bottom line, so great—but not get on with colleagues so well, it makes sense to give them the opportunity to focus on what they can do without bogging everyone down in trivia. However, this is a collegiate project, and collegiate behavior should be a given, so a TB should be without prejudice to addressing the interaction issues if they don't change. (And as we speak they appear to be trying to negotiate the terms of their sanction?) ——Serial Number 54129 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I admit that my way of communication is inefficient to put it mildly and I have to improve my collaboration skills as suggested by User:Grandpallama. Still, I would like to hear an official position on whether the behavior of User:AirshipJungleman29 I mentioned in diffs in this ANI is appropriate, did User:AirshipJungleman29 commit violations of rules I mentioned? It will help me know the interpretation of the rules. My understanding of the rules is that they clearly violate rules. I don't understand why you avoid the topic I raised in this ANI. If there was no violation by User:AirshipJungleman29, please explain. If it was a violation, please admit it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You could probably read the discussion yourself, but I can summarise if you want Maxim Masiutin: while some of my comments were harsh, they were perfectly understandable in the context of your sub-par behaviour, which has been detrimental enough to Wikipedia that your fellow editors think you need to be sanctioned. In this case, the sanction applies just to the GA process; in the future, the sanction may be a project-wide block, so I would recommend changing your behaviour ASAP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I first ran into MM back in November and it took a lot of effort to stay my hand from an indef block for some combination of CIR, TROLL, and/or NOTHERE. I can't believe he's still at it. GA is a critical project function and can't function with problem editors like MM sucking up everybody's time. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You wrote about me (see [[109]]) "Personally, I think he's being an ass". I considered it a personal attack. You wrote that you were an admin, but admins should not be awarded to people who commit personal attacks. Or maybe my interpretation of the term "personal attack" is wrong. It was my first GA review and I was incompetent, but when I read the rule on don't bite newcomers it did not definitely apply. I don't understand why you were enraged on a newcomer. You know how to avoid troubles. Long text - you don't have to read. Don't feed discussion you don't like. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  People who know me will recognize that I generally wave the WP:CIVIL flag more vigorously than most. That may give some insight into what it takes to goad me into using such language. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Still people who don't know you see that you use "ass" and may think that it is a welcome behaviour on Wikipedia, especially considering your various administrative statuses. They may not have same merit as you still they will think that if RoySmith behaves this way why shouldn't I? Please avoid personal attacks at all and do not seek any excuse. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I probably wouldn't use the phrase myself because of the possibility of it being misconstrued, FWIW I would not consider saying that someone is 'being an ass' is a personal attack. If I say that you are an ass, I am insulting you directly; if I say that you're being an ass, I am saying that your behaviour is unacceptable and that you need stop being an ass; to change your behaviour, in other words.

  If an experienced editor in good standing (which Roy undoubtedly is) told me that they thought I was being an ass, my first instinct would not be to wave around the personal attack rulebook, it would be to try to get my head around what their perception of my behaviour was, and what the problem with it was, and whether there's anything I need to change about the way I go about my editing here. (Feel free to hold me to this, all editors in good standing, if you ever think I'm acting like an ass.) Using the terms in which an argument is expressed as a reason to disregard the argument feels like some sort of logical fallacy to me; it's probably got a Latin name that I ought to know. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think Tone policing covers it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the arguments that Roy gave on my behavior on substance, but the form (using word "ass") was what I didn't like. I didn't know it is not insulting in some native language speakers (but I guess it was impolite anyway); still, Wikipedia is used by people with different language skill, so better to be careful. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) I admire RoySmith's restraint. I have read the discussion in question, and I'm sure I would have called your behaviour ass-like or something stronger much sooner. The same goes for your original complaint about AirshipJungleman29. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation, English is not my mothers tongue, so I might understand incorrectly. @RoySmith please forgive me for the wrong interpretation of your phrase. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as the bare minimum at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I don't expect things will have improved in six months so this may just be kicking the can down the road but as Trainsandotherthings says this seems like the minimum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from WP:GAN and to be clear, all parts of the GA process broadly construed. The process isn't compatible with sealioning or such an unrestrained sense of one's own importance that could produce, just now in this very thread, addressing RoySmith, "If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment." NebY (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the understanding that if MM brings similar behaviour to other areas of Wikipedia, they should expect to face not a topic ban, but a project wide one. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  exactly what I came here to say. This is the minimum. The behavior is inappropriate @Maxim Masiutin and if it doesn't change you will be blocked further. I was hovering over doing so before this subthread. So Support TB+ Star Mississippi 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Having read through several of the GA archive discussions involving Maxim, it's clear that his participation is sometimes more of a hindrance than a help to those processes. @Maxim Masiutin, I don't know if your approach to discussions is something you can change; I get the impression that you really don't grasp why so many other editors have become so frustrated. But I hope I'm wrong and that you can find a new approach. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. He just doesn't get it. I've said this before but it bears repeating: editor time is the most precious commodity we have. People who waste it continually as MM has need to be shown the door sooner rather than later. Hopefully MM can stick to writing content without causing similar issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I initially did not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but after getting randomly pung I feel that I ought to look it over and... yeah, this is a clear cut case. Maxim, the more walls of text you write trying to explain this, the worse it gets. I agree with PMC; wasting other editors' time in this respect is one of the most unhelpful things you can do, and Maxim seems dead-set on eating up as much of other editors' time as possible. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support (I was not aware of this ANI thread until the earlier ping.) Maxim is a good writer who makes commendable biology articles, but this thread and my experience with the KET review have unfortunately shown that he lacks communication skills. I regretfully have to support the topic ban proposal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support if I'd gotten to this thread earlier, I might have proposed an indef. Maxim Masiutin should consider this tban to be a final chance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Seems to me that the issues could be resolved with a narrower block/ban from all GAN-related talk pages. "Blocks are preventative not punitive" and it's not clear to me why it is necessary to prevent MM from doing GAN reviews or nominations, if he doesn't interact with the talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  It would not be a good idea for a user to be conducting GAN reviews while being barred from the GAN talk pages. Further, many of the root issues here stem from misunderstandings of the GACR, which would directly affect reviews. Nominations may be another matter that would require looking at some of their past GANs (I have not done so), but a ban from GAN talkpages should include a ban on reviewing. (Although it may be a good idea to grandfather in any ongoing nominations/reviews, simply to ease the flow of things.) CMD (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm torn about allowing submissions while banning reviews. Although there is no quid-pro-quo at GA, there is a general expectation that participants in GA (or any area of the wiki) will give back to the community by helping to keep it running. Allowing submissions while banning them from reviewing would subvert that. On the other hand, allowing them to continue to make submissions and get them reviewed will expose them to how a review is supposed to work, which may be educational. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I may abstain from reviewing GA articles for as long as needed and only handle review process for the articles I already nominated (four at WP:GAN#BIO) without any new nominations. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support: MM has proven the case within this discussion alone. Toughpigs (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support - other editors shouldn't have to deal with this, it's too much to ask of volunteers. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I recognize that good intentions may be at the heart of this complaint, but the complaint is, frankly, unfounded. This has been a time sink for all those involved and I hope MM takes the time to reflect and better understand how their interactions are coming across. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support MM has good intentions, but good god, half their replies here read like an AI chatbot whose only instruction was beating around the bush while completely refusing to engage with any actual points made in the course of the discussion. AryKun (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is true that I sometimes not understand what the Wikipedia editors mean. For example, on my usability proposal in GAN talk, AirshipJungleman29 replied with an ANI threat which I was not sure to materialize, so I was proactive and filed an ANI request where I explicitly asked to check my behaviour (Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation). After uninvolved editors explained me when I am wrong, I thanked and proposed to abstain for at least a year from GAN talk, which is a kind of topic ban volunteerly accepted. Therefore, I don't understand some points: (1) why editors need discuss a topic ban for a lesser period (6 months), it is for the proportionality of punishment principe to put a lower punishment instead; (2) isn't letting the discussion go the waste of people time when it could be concluded a few days ago already on my proposal to abstain from GAN talk; (3) why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI threat, and checking my actions and punishing them if needed was my initial intent of this ANI complaint, isn't a waste of people time to cyclically add and remove such a boomerang shop picture? Wikipedia is still a big puzzle for me. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maxim, this very reply illustrates part of the problem. Your replies are overly long to the point of exhaustion and you post way too many of them; I get that you might want clarification sometimes, but everyone here is a volunteer and it can get annoying trying to address every paragraph long reply. WP:BOOMERANG is referring to how ANI reports can sometimes end up in the one who filed it getting sanctioned if their own behaviour has been less than ideal, analogously to an actual boomerang coming back to hit its thrower.

  Honestly, my only tip to you would be learning how to say what you want in a lot fewer words and realizing that some things about Wikipedia can only be learned by yourself; everyone here is a volunteer and not everyone has the patience to spend significant amounts of time teaching other experienced editors what they should be doing. AryKun (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that boomerang is when your complaint backfires but this is not my case where I explicitly asked to check my behavior and literally filled an AI against myself on behalf of AirshipJungleman29, but people played back and forth with boomerang shop images that falsifies statement that they don't have time Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that boomerang is when your complaint backfires but this is not my case where I explicitly asked to check my behavior and literally filled an AI against myself on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 That's not true. Literally the first sentence of this filing: Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Take difference between form and substance. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's the difference between truth and blatant falsehood. Grandpallama (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  You could have just said "I can't be bothered to apply what people are saying in this very discussion, so here's another tedious comment demanding that others tell me yet again what I've been told dozens of times" Maxim Masiutin. You could have followed Phil's advice to delete 90% of your comments before posting, as you said you would above. But no, we had to have another 300 words of tiresome prattle. You have 29,300 edits—you're not a newcomer—get a grip on yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't use AI to respond @Maxim Masiutin. That does not help your case. Star Mississippi 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is AI... -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I wasn't insinuating that MM is using AI, just that their replies sometimes seem like one in terms of verbosity. AryKun (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said that (cc @Asilvering) and I stand by it as I'm not sure what human speech would render why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI thread, specifically the bold. Google translate, etc. are also AI. If I'm wrong, then I apologize to @Maxim Masiutin Star Mississippi 13:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  It was not a Google translate but my awkward way of writing (I write more software code than human text and it harms in my case). The correct version would have been "A boomerang is a projectile designed to return to the thrower when it misses the target." Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I hope your software code is a bit more concise that your human text. I know the days have long gone where writing a program of over 4KB was frowned upon and writing one of over 12KB was absolutely forbidden (as in my first job in IT), but there are still some limits. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• support - reading this thread was exhausting enough. hopefully 6 months is enough to prompt some self-reflection. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Ayush219

The account Ayush219 (talk · contribs · count) was registered earlier this week and started editing today, and immediately went on to mass replace Bhumihar (which is a caste in India) with Bhumihar Brahmin, i.e., claiming a specific social status for that caste (despite a lack of consensus for that status in multiple discussions at Talk:Bhumihar). The user did not stop their mass changes despite multiple reverts and several warnings posted to their Talk. When finally stopped, their responses were far from collaborative; while their response to a routine CT notice was essentially a PA. Is it only me that feel they are here only to promote their own caste and not to build an encylopaedia? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

kashmīrī tried to identify me from a particular caste and promoted casteism, which is derogatory in India. I don't come from that particular caste. Ayush219 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Caste is a sensitive topic in India, so demeaning them is same as raceism. I request Admin to take necessary action against this user. Ayush219 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you are writing about. Your words about the Bhumihar caste: But there should be people belonging to that community also. Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal make it appear that you consider the Bhumihar caste "very personal", and so I responded politely pointing you to our policies about the conflict of interest. I don't think your aggressive tone is warranted, and I don't feel you understand what Wikipedia is about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said I don't belong to this caste, but you seem to be against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them. I didn't like your this behavior towards a particular caste. Its a clear case of casteism here. Your tone represent racial supremacy. Ayush219 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia. It should post only authentic information. As I said some parts of the article is giving half information and misleading people. I requested that only but you started judging me from a caste point of view. I expect admin to consider this. Ayush219 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ayush219, Kashmiri has given you links to previous discussions on the subject and explained that you should get consensus before making these mass changes, but I can't find anywhere that he's written anything demeaning toward Bhumihar caste nor toward you. If you're going to accuse another editor of such things, you should provide diffs as evidence. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I will. As I am doing some research about different communities, I found lots of misinformation in the The current article Bhumihar. I raised a few questions in the talk also. From few discussions What I understood that Kasmiri is a bit aggressive and trying to show a particular part of the information. Using Census reference to show some half information and using another source to counter the census information in some part.

I expect authenticity of the article for the above mentioned reasons. Ayush219 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ayush219 I'm still waiting for diffs. Also, this is about your behaviour and your groundless accusations. Are you planning to walk them back? Do you have anything to say about your mass edits against consensus? — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ayush219, please be aware that accusing another editor of racial supremacy and saying that the editor is against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them is a very grave matter here on Wikipedia. You are expected to immediately provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs showing quite clearly that the other editor is misbehaving that way. You have thusfar failed to do so. Unsubstantiated accusations like this consitite personal attacks and failure to Assume good faith, both of which are blockable offenses. Please be aware that Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups imposes heightened responsibilities on editors contributing to all caste, Jāti and Varna (Hinduism) related articles. You must now do one of two things: Either provide convincing evidence of actual misconduct by Kashmiri, or unambiguously withdraw your accusations. Caste warriors are simply not welcome on the Engish Wikipedia. The choice between those two options is yours. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Before you reply, Ayush219, please also consider these facts which are not dispositive but are certainly worth pondering: Kashmiri has been editing for almost 16 years, has made over 40,000 edits, and has no valid blocks. You, on the other hand, have been editing for one day, have 79 edits, and are at immediate risk of being blocked. Which among you is most likely to better understand Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines? Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, at a glance, this user probably should not be editing this GS/CT-covered (WP:CASTE / WP:ARBIND) topic, but due to WP:NPOV and WP:DE issues, not WP:COI ^(diff). Just because they say: Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal, which is of course nonsense, does not make it so. That community is nearly 4 million strong, so 'small' is in the eye of the beholder, but regardless, COI is more about WP:PAID (loose and outright), so it would not apply here. Now, if they were part of an org benefiting from such edits, that'd be different. So I'd urge you to be more judicious when invoking it (especially since there's no reason to do so and it only muddies the waters). Thanks. El_C 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Over 72 hours have passed and all we hear is crickets from Ayush219. That's telling. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed at Havana syndrome

• Havana syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Most recent protection request (protected for two weeks on April 5)

Not asking for action on any specific editor here at least, but the situation in terms of behavior at the Havana syndrome talk page really needs some admin help in terms of WP:TPNO to tone things down. This section is the most indicative of how bad it has gotten.

The majority of comments in that section don't even deal with content anymore and are moreso WP:BATTLEGROUND potshots making those of us who were watching this on the periphery at noticeboards pretty much unable to help with anything. I tried commenting once about the personal attacks on the talk page and to knock it off, but it's just escalating anyways given the talk page history this morning, so I don't want to wade into the talk page anymore in that state.

A lot of the underlying issues center around edit warring. Large-scale edit warring was going on earlier, especially WP:ONUS policy violations. It got so bad the page was protected for two weeks by EdJohnston in the hopes that editors would propose specific content and do an RfC if needed on that rather than keep trying to directly add content back in. The latter happened recently instead after protection expired without consensus on specific content. Instead there's a lot of lashing out in the battleground comments against the basic concept that editors need to get consensus on disputed content, especially after page protection, so I'd just ask admins to keep an eye out for those comments escalating the battleground atmosphere there rather than working on the content. This one has felt like pulling teeth between the ONUS issues and battleground comments, so hopefully tamping that down might make the topic more accessible for uninvolved editors. KoA (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it was wrong to tell me about this and no one else. But the page may need long term PP until people actually start to suggest substantive edits, and not vague requests. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a procedural note that this might be better suited to WP:AN rather than WP:AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

With that being said, one remedy might be to label this as subject to the AP2 arbcom sanction. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for actions against any users to notify, and I told you as a courtesy because you had mentioned maybe seeking admin help so nothing was doubled up. Had there been anyone else to notify, I would have.

The hope here is just to get more admin eyes at the talk page to keep things from getting out of hand (also at a time when I had to head out the door for the day). If someone wants to propose specific sanctions here or discuss the broader issues, then notifications can be sent out at that time. KoA (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I requested some input at WP:AE#Havana syndrome about whether this is covered by a contentious topic and whether some AE action might help. Just FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• The problem we have here is that some editors didn't like the consensus in favour of including some content they didn't like, and when removing it in its entirely didn't work, they resort to removing pieces of it, claiming it needs MEDRS, when there is consensus against that too (ongoing RFC has an obvious outcome). It is indeed something that an uninvolved administrator needs to take a good look at. FailedMusician (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we have questions about how much and where. Consensus is just for the inclusion of something, not how to word it. Despite repeated requests to see a suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    There is a suggested text here [110]. So far I see no alternative texts from those removing it. They claim it needs to be removed "because of MEDRS" despite the claims not being purely BMI. FailedMusician (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    Well, this does highlight the problems FailedMusician is exacerbating. FailedMusician is probably the editor Slatersteven's comment most applies to here and this response really comes across as WP:IDHT. They've been repeatedly told about ONUS policy and the expectation that when their content was disputed about a month ago now, they needed to get consensus on the talk page for it or some variation instead of edit warring. Instead, they fight tooth and nail against the idea that they need to propose something specific and get consensus on the talk page for it rather than keep reinserting. When I see an editor having content that was discussed and did not have consensus only for them to try to wiki-lawyer saying something like, "No you, you don't have consensus to remove", that's usually a major source of disruption. By my count, they've tried to slow edit war this content in at least 5 times in April, each time knowing it had already been disputed and needed consensus on talk first.[111][112][113][114][115]

    Especially given that they are a relatively new/low edit account and are barely past the WP:SPA threshold with most of their edits in this subject, the battleground behavior I'm seeing has me wondering how much a p-block from the page would help calm things down. The inflammatory comments even in the last 24 hours on the article talk come across more as itching for a fight[116][117] rather than doing the simple thing of not commenting on contributors and simply just getting consensus for specific text. They're making it harder on themselves, and it does seem like a textbook case of a new account that shouldn't be learning the ropes in a contentious topic. Their talk page isn't encouraging either on the fighting attitude and WP:NOTTHEM:

    • When warned about edit warring at the page, FM in the edit summary said You may participate in the relevant discussions on the talk page instead of casting aspersions..[118]
    • When asked if they had a previous accounts (not an unreasonable concern given how they are suddenly jumping into Wiki-process discussions and the battleground attitude), they just deleted the message.[119]
    • When other concerns about their behavior have come up on their talk page, the refer to it as unhelpful and unwelcome and harassment[120][121]

    KoA (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    When a non-administrator editor I am in dispute with asks me if I had another account, I have no obligation to answer, especially when they put the same question to other editors in the dispute. I have said I have edited before and there is nothing more to talk about. The other snide remarks I removed were harassment. FailedMusician (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    They were not harassment they were concerns about your style of editing. And if you have edited under a different account, you should disclose that account. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    Since you have edited before, then that does bring up valid WP:CLEANSTART concerns, especially However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing). Obviously those discussions are approached cautiously, but so far it appears that was broached to you reasonably.

    As for The other snide remarks I removed were harassment. That does not justify the sniping you engage in on the article talk page, but couching others bringing up issues with your behavior in proper venues as harassment is avoidance and hallmark tendentious editing. My suggestion is to step back from the topic entirely and avoid controversial topics in order to learn the ropes about behavior norms, edit warring, etc., especially when it comes to battleground mentality. That's me trying to give you a pathway that avoids sanctions, and I'm not out to get you here. Sometimes people course-correct and eventually can return to collegial editing on their own when given advice like that, and others unfortunately just lash out instead. With the way you're heading at that page though with this degree of WP:IDHT about one's own behavior, often times the only option the community has left is sanctions when all else fails. KoA (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    FailedMusician: Since I'm not in dispute with you and have never been AFAIK, I've asked you some questions which if answered IMO will help re-assure editors over your previous editing. I do hope you will answer them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    Yes I replied there. FailedMusician (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

    I don't believe I was "in dispute" with FailedMusician when I asked them if they had another account (unless they are counting some dispute from their past?). What raised concern was the very niche knowledge FM seemed to have about the COVID-19 lab leak theory article, and the drama around that.[122] Makes me suspect some kind of grudge editing by means of this WP:PROFRINGE pot stirring at the Havana syndrome article. It would be a policy violation to avoid WP:SCRUTINY by using different accounts - for example to make it hard to detect similar patterns of contribution to the same kinds of fringe/politically-charged contentious topics. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

    What also caught my eye when it came to niche knowledge was wiki-speak used when lashing out at editors addressing their behavior. When you have an account that barely had 100 edits a month ago all of a sudden threatening that those trying to deal with their behavior should be topic banned, jumping into policy/guideline discussion, etc. with a very clear chip on their shoulder about reliable sourcing guidelines, this has the makings of a very murky case of CLEANSTART.

    Not having active sanctions is the bright line for CLEANSTART, but if they were engaging in this behavior in their old account, which seems likely given the above, I worry about the scrutiny question too. KoA (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

    Yes the combination of Wikispeak, intense focus on one article (glad to see they are branching out), and adversarial behavior raised red flags for me. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Well the AE went well. Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Slatersteven for notifying all users in the article talk page. I agree with you that posting here without notifying users was not appropriate. The fact that only some users were notified is even more concerning. Especially since it looks like FailedMusician is being attacked above for no reason at all by a group of "aligned" users trying to stir up something against them.

Regarding the article: I agree the discussion is going in circles. Editors are ignoring established consensus over and over again and there is a bad RfC clogging up editor time with no end in sight. I think we need a reset on that talk page of some kind to get back to work. Closing some discussions might help. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No user was called out in the original post - I think it was fine, what was needed was page protection which eventually occurred. "Especially since it looks like FailedMusician is being attacked above for no reason at all by a group of "aligned" users trying to stir up something against them." In response to their comment? Showing they had notice? Regarding valid concerns? Please. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the original post was careful not to mention me, but the fringe cabal were very quick to make it out and make it all about me. So far this looks a thoroughly failed attempt by editors to lobby administrators in a content dispute. FailedMusician (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh see @KoA 18:04, 23 April 2024 comment regarding your behavior. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, when I initially opened this ANI, it was just to get help with the article across the board (mainly edit warring and all the talk page sniping), but I wasn't going to ask for action against any specific editor since I was hoping sanctions wouldn't be needed if an admin stepped in there and just told people to knock it off with CT sanctions pending if it didn't stop. I had no plans to mention FailedMusician until they doubled down here, and they would not have been the only one if I was coming here to ask for sanctions based on behavior instead of trying to get the article/talk back on track.

So when I see Yes, the original post was careful not to mention me, that's already highlighting a battleground attitude, but the fringe cabal comment is just dripping with it. The latter really does look like a violation of WP:CLEANSTART with the grudge editing related to fringe topics Bon Courage mentions. Gloating about it isn't very helpful either considering FailedMusician was just warned with an impending block[123] for their behavior picking fights with admins at AE.[124][125] They just aren't getting the message about their behavior and are deflecting from that repeatedly. Had they not of been doing that, I probably would not have commented here after April 22. KoA (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not the first time they've been warned recently about messing around with discussion format. [126] Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok that stuff at AE is WILD I didn't even see that... yes I believe that is a great example of their general battleground mentality. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I missed that too, and there should be some action over it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

By a quick count, they have over 100 comments on Talk:Havana_syndrome (1/8th of the total comments on the page.) And it's mostly just making the same tiny number of arguments over and over - they've been WP:BLUDGEONing discussions there to the point where they basically all revolve around them and their views. It makes no sense for the entire page to be full-protected for an entire month when the issues are so clearly the result of a single editor's persistence. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In general that talk page drips with BLUDGEONing but I disagree FailedMusician was a big offender. He has just been working on the page for a long time and before other editors started ignoring consensus, bludgeoning discussions and in general instigating useless edit wars over and over again with endless arguments over nothing despite clear consensus. A lot of wasted editor time. I see the usual tactic of bunching up a lot of unrelated past offences by FailedMusician to make it seem like they are a problem and try to get some sanction against them (just throw in anything until something sticks). Nothing new here: the usual toxic witch hunt behaviour that appears every time something is posted on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. This mess started after a rallying cry was posted on that noticeboard (later redacted by the OP after I pointed out the WP:CANVASS issues [127]). Since that post the page has exploded and has already been protected several times with no end in sight. It's really hard to work collegialy and serenely in this environment. FTN needs to be reined in to break this vicious cycle of toxicity. Everything that board touches turns into a war. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Which is why this asked for admins to have a butchers, and did not single out one user. So yes DS might be needed, and enforced. And yes full protection (dates to this point ) might be a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Some users need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

RainbowBambi

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

---

User refuses to stop adding ridiculous PRODs (1, 2, 3, etc.) to articles after being warned several times, continues to insist every article is "vandalism" or a "troll page." Also has months of spam edits and pointless reverts. Almost all of their edits are vandalism. Swinub (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This person appears to basically be trolling, so for the moment I have p-blocked them from article space but also informed them they may still comment here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Either this is a big case of WP:CIR or a troll. Former or latter, you decide. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've undne your close, as this was a partial block intended to allow them to make their case here while unable to edit article space. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry on my behalf. When I looked at the talk page, I only read the part where it said "You have been blocked indefinitely" and immediately assumed that the case was closed. Didn't realize they were blocked from article space, and you invited them to the ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 20:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This person is trolling. The names and nature of the articles they decide to PROD on are quite telling. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: This user has made personal attacks on my talk page 1. I ask that the ban is not removed, and extended to all spaces. ElENdElA (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry, I made one inappropriate comment stating that "you are a troll" which is incorrect, please un ban me RainbowBambi (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to fight vandalism, but I am still new to that process, I just want someone to teach me how to properly fight vandalism, I want to make a difference on Wikipedia RainbowBambi (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If this isn't trolling, it is incompetence at a level beyond any reasonable hope of rectification, and since functionally the end result is the same in either case, an indefinite block seems entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I need teaching, please give me a chance RainbowBambi (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in unannounced, but a couple days ago they tried to PROD a bunch of stub articles for “not containing enough information” or for no given reason. At least 27 articles in short succession. They also changed their username soon afterwards. This person is just a troll. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I went to random articles, I did not know how to put in the stub template. I am not a troll, I was just trying to help RainbowBambi (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

All of those articles already had the stub template on them and obviously going around marking random articles for deletion isn’t helping anyone. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@RainbowBambi: If you are really in good faith, then an advice I have for you, whenever going beyond the simple editing task for beginners, is to ask to self if I am experienced enough for this new task or not, and what is the probability that some lack of knowledge I apparently have will cause disruption. Using tags like PROD requires knowledge of basic policy and guidelines of Wikipedia, which I think is natural to a new editor like you to lack. Be bold in making decisions, but don't rush. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ok, I will look into all the editing tools now. May I please be unblocked now, I promise not to incorrectly label or edit articles. RainbowBambi (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If I'm being completely honest, I simply do not believe you. There are too many tells that you have been being deliberately disruptive and dishonest. Also, I also generally don't review my own blocks, so you'll need to convince another administratot to unblock you. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Normally I would just indef block as a troll, but since there is a discussion here, I guess I'll join the timesink to say: "Does anyone object if I block as an obvious troll?" Taking all their edits together, there is simply no way this is a clueless newbie. Based on the editor time spent replying here, the trolling has already succeeded. May I end it? --16:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs)

  Bring down the bridge. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  We've heard enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misread the thread and thought someone didn't think this was trolling. I think we're unanimous. Blocking now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Ash.david

• Ash.david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has severe civility problems on Talk:Fraser Island including failure to abide by the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct (mandated by ToS) and ad hominem at contributors whom they disagree with. Since I've been directly involved, can someone else take a look at it? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that this user has been blocked for similar offenses back in January. SHB2000 (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. If and when that is appealed, I think a block from K'gari/Fraser and its Talk are likely necessary since they seem unwilling/able to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 11:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I'd be open for a TBAN on anything to do with K'gari/Fraser Island and place names. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously support a page block and/or topic ban; their behavior has not changed after several previous blocks, this has been going on pointlessly for ages. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd favor a TBAN over place names as opposed to a single page block given their vendetta against First Nations place names. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ceredigion

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

---

Apparently Sirfurboy refuses to hear anything, repeating the same disproved arguments over and over. Summer92 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute under discussion at the article talk page. I will not be taking any further part in this here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (OP asserts repeatedly that Ceredigion is an English word so we should provide English pronunciation for it). OP's February 2024 unblock request included In case of content disputes I'd try to discuss it on the talk page, and if that doesn't work I'll go to ANI or other appropriate boards.[128] NebY (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I did what I promised to do, since the discussion on that talk page is just one person refusing to hear anything. Summer92 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If we go by Sirfurboy's arguments, I would suppose that the English pronunciations of Gdansk, Riga and so on would be removed since they aren't English, which is absurd. Summer92 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned twice already, this is a content dispute. ANI is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis in original), which I'm not seeing at Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation 2. You should use WP:DR to determine next steps; a page that an administrator requested you read. I'd advise withdrawing this complaint and moving on. (Non-administrator comment) —Sirdog (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Ideological BLP vandalism

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8490:12E0:0:0:0:0/64 - pretty much all edits from this IP range are ideological BLP vandalism. There aren't that many edits and they're quickly reverted, but this has been going on for over a year now and it's all coming from the same person. Avessa (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the link, it's been 3 years since this started. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't spell, either. But seriously, I'm amazed this character is still at large. There was a two-week block in December 2023, that's all, and there has been lots of BLP vandalism since then. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC).

Newbie is NOTHERE

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

---

CPSisoAisha is WP:NOTHERE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also reported to AIV. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

can you be specific? Did I say somethat IS NOT TRUE? Please cite. Lets talk about this pal. CPSisoAisha (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Liberal liars are cowards. Why can't you tell me I'm wrong? Is it because you'd be wrong if you did? Call out my "lies" specifically. Not with vague virtue signaling CPSisoAisha (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You have just proved my point. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@CPSisoAisha: Before anything, it would be better if you be calm and civil or not being so would be enough for block. If you have done something wrong, the points will be presented if not blatantly obvious. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

They are here having an axe to grind against liberals. They made that point over and over. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick look at their contributions and talk page show consistent POV-pushing and more of an interest in arguing than building an encyclopedia. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked per the "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" portion of WP:NOTHERE.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Undiscussed, disruptive page moves

• Mets1013! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone have a word with Mets1013! who has now, for a second time, moved War in Afghanistan to a disambiguation page and thence onto a page with a period/full stop on it? I moved them back once already, but I am not going to move war when both of their unilaterally chosen titles are wrong: one has an unnecessary disambiguator, and the other uses punctuation. I have advised them against this. They continued, with no explanation. It is bizarre, considering this must be one of our highest-viewed articles, and I can't really see the point. But when accidental disruption becomes a deliberate disruption, I suppose the point ceases to matter. ——Serial Number 54129 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've pblocked Mets1013! from performing page moves.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo. Poor old Ahecht just spent about 15 edits in as many minutes undoing all their mess and getting the pages back to normal. I couldn't face it! ——Serial Number 54129 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Mteiritay at Sulaiman Bek

I request administrative action against User:Mteiritay for their repeated unsubstantiated deletions of sourced content at Sulaiman Bek, or, alternatively, a protection of that specific page - whatever you see fit. I tried to discuss their objections thoroughly at the article's talk page and went through both the WP:RfC and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sulaiman Bek processes, where they were unwilling to engage properly. The conflict on the page is ongoing since March 31 now and the user has proven their unwillingness to either engage in a constructive discussion or accept the sourced changes. As I don't believe an edit war would help here to move the issue to the responsible noticeboard, I don't see another way than requesting admin intervention.

• The conflict mainly is about this edit. I have changed a little bit in the latest edit, but the two conflict points remain the same:
• 1. Alternative spelling: The town is commonly spelled Sulayman Beg, especially in languages from the region that have a "g" in their alphabet, such as Iraqi Turkmen. I have added three sources for that.
• 2. Presence of a Turkmen minority: The main point of contestion. I have added three sources, including France 24 and Al Arabiya, supporting that claim, and two sources talking about a tribe that speaks both Iraqi Turkmen and Arabic, which settles in that city.
• The user's responses looked mostly like this; short one-liners without actual engagement with the claims made and the content of the sources.
• They also deleted content they haven't even criticized regardless, like my inclusion of the Arabic Albu Sabah tribe (which was mentioned in one of the sources already used in the article) and the addition of a link to the Wikipedia pages of two other tribes that are already mentioned in the article in my latest edit.
• Sidenote: The user had been in another edit war in March, which resulted in the (probably rightful, from what I see there) ban of the other user involved; however, the admin banning that other user argued in defense for that ban by accidentally also using two edits (12) that were actually done by User:Mteiritay as proof for unacceptable behavior.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for all the time-consuming voluntary work you are doing to keep Wikipedia a good place. I imagine it to be tiring at times; I surely am tired by this conflict; the issue is not even that important to me - I just invested so much time in this already that I feel like I can't just quit now.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: The documentation of the dispute resolution process mentioned above has been archived now at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 244#Sulaiman Bek.--Ermanarich (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Nearly impossible to block these Sydney IPs

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

---

• 1.144.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 1.145.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Sydney has been adding unsupported recording dates in music articles, especially songs by Crowded House, Sting, Billy Idol and INXS.[129][130][131] They have also changed release dates with no reference. This has been happening for more than a year,[132][133][134] but has recently become much more disruptive. The behavior includes edit-warring at the same articles; Special:Contributions/1.145.116.112 broke 3RR on one day in March. The IPs change frequently, with six IPs including Special:Contributions/1.145.74.230 used in less than one hour today. The IPs also span a wide range—a /21 group and a huge /16 group. If we block these ranges there will be collateral damage. Is there a way we can target this vandal more precisely? Pinging Ss112 who has also been dealing with this disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 49.181.77.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.144.108.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.144.108.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.15.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.23.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.24.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎‎1.145.28.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.42.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.55.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.74.230 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.79.187 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.83.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.86.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.90.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.91.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.108.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.111.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.115.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.116.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.127.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note that Special:Contributions/1.145.104.250 was blocked two weeks ago, but the style of that editor is different. They focused on music sales chart results and certifications. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Is the first IP(49.181.77.72) related? They were removing the word Australia, nothing to do with dates. – 2804:F1...E7:923 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right. That one got in the list accidentally. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've notified 1.145.57.84, from the second IP range, who is doing this right this moment. – originally a reply posted 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Huh nevermind, here's another range: 1.129.0.0/16 (examples: diff1, diff2, diff3). I won't notify them anymore, because there's reports on the 1.144 and the 1.129 from 2019 of them doing the same thing (if it is the same person): WP:3RR.

With a history like that, talking isn't going to work, is it? – originally a reply posted 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Also some insightful commentary in this ANI thread about a geography vandal who shares a range with a music vandal, along with some info about the network of these IPs.

Also info about previous range blocks on the ranges of these vandals - so range blocks are definitely an option, just more specifically targeted at times. – 2804:F1...E7:923 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For example, Special:Contributions/1.145.0.0/17 has been blocked for 3 months one time and 6 months two times. The IP I notified above, is part of this range.

*I'll stop spamming this thread now, sorry* – 2804:F1...E7:923 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked both ranges (the /21 x 1 month and /16 x 3 months). The latter range has been previously blocked. In both cases there is likely to be some collateral damage. Unfortunately, I think the level of disruption requires some kind of intervention. Both blocks are Anon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! We're done here until the blocks expire. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Jonharojjashi, part 2

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

TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [135], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [136] [137], but they were mostly fruitless.

Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [138] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [139]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [140]
3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [141] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [142] [143] [144] [145]
2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [146]
3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [147], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [148]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [149] [150]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [151] [152]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [153] [154] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [155] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [156] [157].

Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [158], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [159]
2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [160], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [161]
3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [162], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [163]
4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [164] [165]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [166]
5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11

Jonharojjashi more or less restored [172] the unsourced edit [173] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

Closing remark

In made response to my previous ANI [174], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [175] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Turbo cancer

• Turbo cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scott Adams has taken to Xitter to complain about an article I created, on the nonexistent "turbo cancer". Can I please ask people to watchlist. I will brace for incoming shit because my RWI is easily established, and Adams is beloved of deranged fuckwits. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist to keep watch. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Let's try and stop a battle from happening. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Same. Will be fun blocking the racist / anti-vaxxer trash, should any arise! Acalamari 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

JzG, Just a note, the article is semi-protected because of a CTOPS action through June 12th, 2024, protected by Daniel Case on December 12th of last year, so we may be fine for now. I will still watchlist the page as well. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks much! Guy (help! - typo?) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

RWI? Putting square brackets around it didn't help me, I don't think you're talking about any of the things on our disambig page. I'm a teacher, so my mind went to Read Write Inc., an educations supplies/software company, but I don't think that's what you mean either. Throw me a bone here? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

From the context, I'm guessing "real world identity"?? Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense. I thought about it for a while, but it didn't occur to me. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Cjhard is WP:NOTHERE, personal attacks and using WP as battleground

User Cjhard demonstrating WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating Wikipedia as a battleground". User first began performing repeated reverts on South Park: Joining the Panderverse involving critical reviews, which has already escalated to a WP:DRN. When given his first WP:3RR on the subject, his edit summary included the phrase "Do not edit my talk page again." Since then, he has (purposefully?) made changes to another article I have been involved with, The Pandemic Special, a subject which he had previously had no interest in prior to our interactions. The edits he has been making on this article are reverting a clear violation of WP:NOTBROKEN where another editor was adding a pipe to a redirect. He has been purposefully undoing these reversions with his edit summaries indicating that he believes this is also a difference of opinion. Furthermore, his edit summaries include other WP:PA, including "cross the bright red line, SanAnmAN, and "Please do. In the meantime I made myself pretty clear last time. Fuck off.". It is apparent to me that he is engaged in personal attacks on me. - SanAnMan (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pandemic_Special&action=history
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park:_Joining_the_Panderverse&action=history

Based off these two articles revision history, it seems you are in fact edit warring here, potentially against consensus. In fact, quick scroll reveals almost any recent change to the article 'South Park: Joining the Panderverse' has been reverted by you. I hear a bird...no a mutual WP:BOOMERANG already. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This report obviously doesn't require a response from me and I'm not particularly interested in engaging with it. However, noting the above suggestion of a boomerang, these users have dealt with SanAnMan's tendentious edit-warring recently and may wish to engage with this conversation: @Alex 21: @Wikibenboy94: @Happily888: @EverestMachine 4001: Cjhard (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Annnnnd it gets worse. @SanAnMan has gone to multiple editors, such as in this revision :[176][177], encouraging them to deal with an 'abusive user' (WP: ASPERSIONS ) and attempts to canvass to support him. I count he did this at least 5 times, saying he would 'fight for he believes is right' (another policy violation). Im deeply annoyed at having to call out a senior editor for this, but this is beyond The Pale Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

To be fair to SanAnMan, it looks to me that he's absolutely in the right here regarding the article changes themselves. I can't see anything wrong with the reviews in the Joining the Panderverse article, and the redirect pipe in the Pandemic Special article is clearly against guidelines.

And why are reversions being made before this incident report has been closed? [178] [179] I believe further discussion is required first. Barry Wom (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

'I can't see anything wrong with the articles changes themselves' and that's fair. But the issue here is that he canvassed for his side of the story, hence my reversion on the first diff, so I acted. On the other diff there is a now 3-1 consensus, so I made the changes. Feel free to revert the second change, but I stand by keeping the first one as is for the duration of this ANI case. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support for keeping the reviews as is has been established by myself, Barry Wom, Nightscream, and Special:Contributions/109.77.193.78. Please check your math. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, there was erroneous data in my calculator, it's down to this [180] summary where you state there is a 2/1 consensus, which would make me the third. But while we are on topic, why did you canvass multiple editors regarding the most minor of issues? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The only editors I contacted were editors who had already previously been involved in the talk page discussion about these reviews as well as multiple other articles involving South Park, as they had already expressed an interest in the discussion. I did not consider that to be WP:Canvassing, especially when the section states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I will freely admit to being a very passionate editor when it comes to WP. And yes, I will also admit that I need to be more mindful of getting into edit wars. I am also adamant about trying to enforce what I believe to be tried and true WP policies/guidelines including WP:NOTBROKEN, especially when other editors seem to purposefully break them without justification. And I never under any circumstance use any kind of foul language or veiled threats ("cross the bright red line"). - SanAnMan (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I will say that in my interactions with SanAnMan, as well as a cursory glance at their talk page history, that I believe that this user likely has a problem with WP:EDITWARRING, WP:OWNership and WP:CANVASSing. SanAnMan frequently is shown to choose to not follow WP:DISCFAIL/WP:DR procedures, including having been previously blocked for this behaviour and choosing to not discuss on talk pages when disputes occur or they are requested to. Whilst I understand that SanAnMan is a "very passionate editor", I don't believe that this gives you the excuse to edit war. Happily888 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

SanAnMan, was it not true that they made it clear they didn't want you posting on their talk page? "Fuck off" is typically not blockable, and personally I'd save my fuck offs for after the third unwanted post on my talk page, but here you are--dragging an editor to ANI, canvassing other editors, edit warring (over a silly redirect/pipe). I strongly suggest you stop that edit warring and not make any more accusations, here or anywhere else, or you're likely to get blocked for harassment/personal attacks/edit warring/disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The only posts I have made to his talk page have been required posts for notices including 3RR and other required admin notices. I have not posted any personal notes to his talk page. SanAnMan (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not true: this was not required in any way. And "cross the bright line" is not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Cjhard purposefully was tracking my edits after our initial conflict and purposefully chose to involve himself in another edit war with me on that article. I will apologize for inserting my personal opinion in those comments, but the initial part of the vandalism notice is an auto-complete courtesy of Twinkle. And you and I will have to agree to disagree that "cross the bright red line" is not a personal attack, especially when this article frequently equates the phrase to acts of war. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

the initial part of the vandalism notice is an auto-complete courtesy of Twinkle

I believe that @Drmies was saying that the notice was unnecessary, especially a 4th-level one. I would agree. _Dial^mayo 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

SanAnMan, if you're really going to argue that Cjhard was declaring war on you--well. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said that he was actually declaring war on me. I do equate the statement as a threat though. My two cents. If he just leaves me alone and stops following my topics of editing, I'm fine, because I do still believe he purposefully followed my editing to another article he previously had no interest in whatsoever for the sole purpose of continuing his battle with me. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well how do you know he is reverting you with the sole purpose of targeting you? 'Cross the line' sounds like a 'your crossing 3RR and may bear the consequences of it' to me. Let the WP:AGF flow and read up on WP:DISCFAIL Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you decided to break the editing guideline of WP:NOTBROKEN on the article solely because I asked another interested editor to review it so I could try to avoid more warring? The editors I asked to review the article were already-existing interested editors, so I did not intend to be WP:Canvassing. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please answer how Cjhard is targetting you? There is no reason to rush to other editors to support your point of view in a edit war (NOT a discussion) before going to the edit war noticeboard or following WP:DISCFAIL procedures. Except, of course, if you are not entirely blameless yourself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did first open a WP:DRN on the debate between us on the editorials on Joining the Panderverse. He refused to cooperate. In regards to the targeting, after he and I starting having our "debate" (for lack of a better term) on that article, I was handling the WP:NOTBROKEN issue on The Pandemic Special with another editor when Cjhard, who previously had no interest or interaction on the topic, decided to start reverting those edits as well without explanation. And for the record, I am not the only editor who has been supporting/reverting the NOTBROKEN edits on that page. It is a guideline for a reason. That, to me, shows me that he was targeting my edits, most likely out of spite. It should also be noted that so far he has not contributed or commented in any way on this matter, same as he did with the DRN. So now that I've (hopefully) answered your question, will you please answer mine and explain why you are also reverting the NOTBROKEN guidelines? - SanAnMan (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

PS -- I've never said that my hands are completely clean. I'll admit that I most likely crossed the line when it comes to 3RR myself. As I stated earlier, I'm a very passionate editor. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

User needs autopatrolled revoked

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

---

I have noticed with alarm that User:ElijahPepe has been creating one-sentence stubs and expecting others to do the work of filling them out. ElijahPepe has autopatrolled, and I believe this pattern of page creations to be inconsistent with the standards we expect of editors with this permission. His creations should be reviewed by new page patrollers, especially since so many have ultimately been redirected. He also cannot be bothered to add any categories to his article creations, which is really the bare minimum for an experienced editor.

Examples:

• created today, one sentence stub
• created yesterday, and I'm being generous by including his addition of 1 further sentence
• created April 12th, never expanded beyond 1 sentence
• created April 9th as one sentence, all other additions were by other editors
• created as a 1 sentence stub on March 27th, no further additions by ElijahPepe
• created as a 1 sentence stub on March 22nd with no further additions
• two sentence stub created on March 21st, once again other editors had to turn it into a viable article
• created as a 1 sentence stub on March 14th, other editors had to do the work of making it an actual article.

I could name many more examples, but I think I've made my point. Elijah should not have the autopatrolled user right, as it is for editors whose contributions can be expected to have no issues. To be clear I am not expecting anyone to be writing GA-level articles right off the bat, but at minimum they should be writing a few sentences and including more than one reference - this is a low bar to clear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not like perma-stubs but how has this person violated a policy? Are they creating articles which are clearly not notable? They have added at least one source to each article. It is mildly aggravating but did they show that they are not to be trusted with AP? Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Should probably also ping Schwede66 since they granted the AP. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, the bar for AP is a lot higher than the bar for an article not violating policy. If someone makes a 1 sentence stub, they aren't breaking any policies. However, someone making 1 sentence stubs should have their creations subject to review by NPP.

To answer your question on non-notable creations, the following are creations of theirs which have not been kept at AfD. Out of fairness, I am only considering events since the granting of the AP permission in September 2023.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Republican Party presidential primaries (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial public offering of Arm Holdings (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) (deleted, recreated strictly as a redirect)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy (merged)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion (merged)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nevada air ambulance crash (still being discussed, but participants so far all are in favor of deletion)

There are also a number of articles by him which have been redirected, but those are not as easy for me to dig up as the ones where an AfD was initiated. Nobody is perfect, and I do not consider it a black mark if someone has an article not kept at AfD on occasion. However I believe the track record since September shows non-notable creations on a frequent enough basis that more oversight would be appropriate. I also want to emphasize that I am not seeking to restrict him from mainspace editing in any way, just simply to have his page creations subject to review by NPP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This list seems damning, but I think it's a little misleading to post only a list of the times he has taken an L. For example, here is a list of all the articles he's created that haven't been deleted:

jp×g🗯️ 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Of perhaps greater concern is that they're still not using edit summaries for content edits (as opposed to all of those image removals, which appear to have automated summaries).Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A valid point, and I'd argue another point in favor of AP being pulled. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's absolutely not on. For the record, I granted AP here: User talk:ElijahPepe/Archives/2#Autopatrolled granted. ElijahPepe, I won't clutter your talk page with a message about AP removal (and add to your stress levels); I trust you'll find this note when you follow the ping. One-sentence stubs are easy to patrol and editors who write them do not get assigned autopatrolled. And for the record, the user's editing patterns have changed as you can see from my approval message. Schwede66 03:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting here, that AP users can (as of a few weeks ago) unpatrol pages they want to have go through the feed. Elijah could just do that for short one-sentence stubs that they are creating. Sohom (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this feature. Had I been, I would have used it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing you were wrong in granting AP initially, Schwede. All of these examples are of behavior after AP was granted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A warning would have been fine enough. I create stubs in order to create articles with everyone's involvement. If that is not acceptable, that is fine, but I was not given a warning until today. As for the articles for deletion, I only created the primaries articles, the Lloyd Austin article, and the Arm Holdings article. I am still trying to get better at edit summaries. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a setting in the preferences tab if I recall correctly that alerts you when you are about to save without adding an edit summary, you may consider enabling it so you can get in the habit and remembering to add one. 173.172.215.80 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Preferences > Edit > "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". Just don't get into the habit of double clicking of the save button, ya? – robertsky (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't bullshit me, Elijah. You were warned earlier this month and made it clear you had no intention of changing your behavior. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Very respectful. Your thinly-veiled passive-aggressiveness has not been sly throughout our conversations, and your tendency to accuse erroneously attributed AfDs I was involved in to articles I wrote. As for the substance of your comment, I did not recall that I had said that when I wrote that comment. Ecrusized did not provide a policy against creating one-sentence articles and did not follow up after my comment; his clarification was that it was acceptable given the article was being worked on before being linked to a high-traffic page. Obviously, I'm aware now that is not acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe this AN/I thread should have been a Discord argument. jp×g🗯️ 01:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Do let me know if you have any useful contributions to make, Jpxg. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Lack of autopatrol simply means "new articles need a look by a second person". That's the norm, not some remedy for an egregious violation. Conversely, Autopatrol means "new articles never get a look by a second person" IMO should be a very high bar. IMO when in doubt, go with "the norm". North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  And here's another thing: unlike other "rights", autopatrol has zero effect on what an editor can or cannot do. It's about reducing load on patrollers. It should be given, or retained, only when an editor is 100%, unambiguously, trustworthy. EEng 02:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Abrasax123

• Abrasax123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was warned in the past. He didn’t treat me and other Wikipedia editors with respect. He is not being neutral and he is biased. He has already being warned in the past couple of times but he still keep doing it. Bezea2691 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Bezea2691 Did you notify them of this discussion as required?(see the top of this page) Admins do not settle content disputes. Have you made use of dispute resolution? 331dot (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And be advised that your own actions will be examined as well. See WP:BOOMERANG. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For reference the content is very similar to content added by Hzted6[181] before they were blocked. It was re-introduced by Besea2691's first edit in November 2023.[182] It's been removed and re-added repeatedly since then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks the same to me, too. I've blocked Bezea2691 without tags. Hzted6 was CU-blocked by Ponyo but not tagged. I suspect that both accounts are socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r. Am I right, Ponyo, or is it a different master?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

When I checked Hzted6 in November it was part of an investigation of socking at Oromo people, which includes my bock of Yeozg0 (talk · contribs); I guess I didn't know who the master was at the time or I would have mentioned it in the block log.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo. I still think it's likely Gabi838r, based on behavior and username similarity, but I'm not going out on a limb and tagging as that master. Instead, I've tagged the three accounts as socks of each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Dalton Tan

Reposting because it was immediately removed by an archival bot.

• Dalton Tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aviation Novice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dalton Tan has received several warnings on their talk page for making unsourced, unexplained changes to route tables on Japanese rail line articles. Often these edits include changes to stopping patterns (1, 2, 3) or other non-constructive changes (4, 5). Yesterday they created a new account – Aviation Novice – in hopes of being able to have a clean start. Their conduct was initially discussed at the village pump, which makes them ineligible for a clean start. They seem to be well aware of the scrutiny, and because of this, I'm requesting that both accounts be blocked. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(Favor) I've written misinformation(vandalism) several times, so I'm in favor of blocking. They even refuse to engage in dialogue. Therefore, we believe that a fixed-term block of one year or more is appropriate. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and again, Dalton Tan (using the Aviation Novice account), changed the stopping pattern in the station list of the Tōyoko Line article without explanation and against what reliable sources state. Prior to the creation of their second account, Dalton Tan has been ignoring all the previous warnings put in place regarding the introduction of deliberate factual errors into articles which they should not have done. Their persistent disruptive editing (and perhaps also WP:NOR violations) led to several other editors (including me) having to undo or manually revert a number of unsourced and unexplained edits this editor made to more than twenty Railway lines and services articles (further examples including [183], [184] and [185]). Hence, I also agree that blocks to be imposed on both of these accounts. ~ SG5536B (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I actually wanted to Correct the Mistakes I have actually Committed. Based on the TRUE Tokyu Line Map System, the S-Train (Seibu) Service actually stops at Jiyūgaoka Station on the Tokyu Toyoko Line. Aviation Novice (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer why you were adding misinformation in the first place. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I am the one who reverted his edits on the Hankyu Kobe Main Line. There is a station called "Tsukaguchi", but he described it as a limited express stop and misinformation. [186] In the case, Tsukaguchi is a limited express slew station, which is evidence of misinformation. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the clean start part of all this: clearly, this is not a clean start. Doing exactly what you were doing before is not a clean start, and the link between the accounts has been publicly acknowledged. We can take this as basically equivalent to a rename and focus on the problematic editing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Continual creation of non-notable pages and drafts by Numspan33

• Numspan33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After multiple warnings by User:Whpq (here) and myself (here and here), they have continued the creation of problematic pages (predominantly clear failure of notability), most recently Draft:Penta (river), which was draftified by User:Wham2001 just now. For the most part, they have not been responding to talk page messages with a total of one, evasive, response to those three talk page messages. Generally it seems that they have a WP:IDHT or even a WP:CIR issue here as they are diving in too deep too quickly into article creation. It's unlikely they will improve if they continue this evasive communication style, so I'm requesting admin attention on the issue. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for sockpuppetry. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

tagged most of the creations for CSD save for a couple that were too close to Editer344's block date. Star Mississippi 03:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Harassment & Disruptive editing of User: Versace1608 -Topic /article and interaction ban proposal

1. Previously @Versace1608 engaged in disruptive editing via me simply correcting an article as per sources [187] , was uncivil in interaction via foul language, WP:USERTALKSTOP, nationality commentary "you South Africans etc." aimed at myself and @Dxneo - similiar interaction/incident with @DollysOnMyMind here at, ANI and proceeded to list incident ANI: Behaviour of Qaqaamba, here which @Swatjester and @Mackensen, interacted and engaged with.
2. The editor then proceeded to nominate article Afro fusion , I had created as AfD ( [188] ) as "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail.", As per procedure, I edited/modified the article, expanded it and cited a lot more sources.
3. @Star Mississippi relisted the article to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus as well as to hear from more independent editors.
4. The editor, then proceeded to remove sourced information from the article and added "citation needed" templates in the infobox whereas sources provided in the article already substantiate the information as per stylistic influences/ cultural origins and genres sourced in the article itself do not necessitate a seperate source within the infobox. (Special:Diff/1220615604), the same article had a new user vandalize it, recently. (Special:Diff/1218715580)
5. The article is still under AfD debate, consensus has not been reached and although the editor previously demanded WP:USERTALKSTOP , has added a section on my talk page ([[189]]) bordering WP:HARASS accusing me of not providing sources and "claiming a musician/band as a pioneer" whereas nowhere in the article is that currently stipulated , as well as "threatening" to revert sourced information, as well as that "I am not a credible editor ", "I will monitor all of your edits moving forward", amongst other stipulations.

Qaqaamba (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Versace1608 Is still doing race comments on South African editors even after being warned for it two separate times on "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents"??? This has to stop. At this point I think this repetitive uncivil behavior is block worthy. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did I make race comments? If you're going to make a wild accusation like that, you will need to provide proof. For your info, I am black man from Liberia. I only acknowledged you being South African (your nationality, not race) to suggest that you can spend time creating SA-related articles. I never told you that you must stick to editing SA-related articles and cannot edit the Wizkid article. I have created several Nigerian, Ghanaian, Kenyan, and South African-related articles despite not being from these countries. I listen to music from a lot of African countries and since I feel like Wikipedia is still lacking in terms of African-music content, I decided to invest my time creating African-music related content.

You can edit any article as you please. You took my comments the wrong way and opened an ANI case, accusing me of commenting on your race. You failed to justify why you removed the genres I added to the Wizkid article. I added sources to support my edits and you didn't provide a single source to justify the removal of the genres I added.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This report is very light on diffs. It is also unclear how you allege Versace has violated the policies and guidelines linked.

• Please link to the "you South Africans" comment alluded to in point 1. If you're referring only to the one in the previous ANI thread, I think it's fair to say that was dealt with. If it's a new one, we need to see it. Similarly, foul language is not in itself policy violating.
• Nominating an article for AfD is not against policy. If you could show that it was targeting you specifically, that'd be different, but it's clear Versace also has an interest in the topic.
• I have trouble even parsing the sentence Versace alluded to in your only supplied diff of their edits. A talk page discussion to work out what it should say and if the sources support are preferable to wholesale removal, but removal is not against policy. Especially when it's a sentence so filled with subclauses that I lost the subject half way through.
• The only thing objectionable I've seen from Versace is You aren't a credible editor, which seems like a mild WP:NPA. Bad, Versace. No cookie. This ANI actually well illustrates why WP:CIV is important; it promises to be a time sink which may have been avoided by keeping cool. Versace, I trust in the future you intend to comment on edits, not on editors? With that understanding, I see no need for further action.
• However, I think Qaqaamba misunderstands WP:USERTALKSTOP; unless Qaqaamba has asked Versace to not post on Qaqaamba's talk page, there was no USERTALKSTOP violation. If Versace was asked to stop, we need a diff of that request.

I believe an interaction ban is premature at this time. However, if the two continue to lock horns over Afro Fusion, some sanction may be necessary. I'd suggest, since Afro Fusion has been the source of contention, a time-limited topic ban for both from the subject may be preferable. However, that's a thought for the future; for now, I'd prefer to see them discussing sources and guidelines to sniping and filing ANI reports. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck if I am not a mistaken, you are not an admin. During the previous ANI incident (Behaviour of Qaqaamba) you appeared to repeatedly WP:BLUDGEON additionally insistently claimed to not be able "to see diffs" although, admins could, you are entitled to your opinion however with all due respect you are totally uninivolved and as per last incident tend to suspiciously stipulate one-sided favored comments, thank you for your contributions however if possible, please steer clear. Thank you so much. Qaqaamba (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Qaqaamba Being an admin is not required to participate on this noticeboard. As for WP:BLUDGEON, accusations of misbehavior without evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. Please provide evidence or retract the claim. I also don't recall any admin stating they found diffs where I did not. I could be wrong; that's what diffs are for. If an uninvolved party suggests I steer clear, I will likely comply. I am reluctant to do so on your request, however, given that it sounds like you just don't like my take on your report. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck I didn't insist it was obligatory. I merely expressed my viewpoints, referenced past incidents, appreciated your contributions and requested, if possible, for you to please avoid involvement. Qaqaamba (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Prior to nominating the Afro fusion article for deletion, I believe that the genre originated in South Africa without checking the sources. I believed Qaquaamba was a credible editor. It turns out that he isn't. I have the right to challenge info that doesn't support the sources cited. Qaquaamba claimed that Afro fusion was developed in South Africa; he also claimed that Freshlyground pioneered the music genre. None of this is true. The sources he cited doesn't state any of this. Anything added to Wikipedia must be backed by a reliable source. How is Qaquaamba a credible editor when he has failed to provide a reliable source to support the things noted above? I left a note on his talk page and instead of addressing my note, he chose to open an ANI discussion. Does he expect admins to block me for inserting citation needed templates in the info box and removing a sentence that isn't supported by the sources cited in the article? This is ridiculous. All of this can be avoided if he provides a reliable source to support his edits. It's as simple as that.

He mentioned that I have been disruptive; this is completely false. I only told him to stop posting those warning notes on my talk page. He is the one engaging in edit warring and even when I undid one of his revision to my user page, he kept posting. I had to open a case here before he stopped posting on my talk page.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting to expand on @Qaqaamba's assesment of my relist, in order to hear from more independent editors it might be helpful if those who have weighed in extensively already take a step back. Star Mississippi 16:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Deman2003 continues to remove sourced information at Ergan, Erzincan. I've encouraged them to expand the page instead of removing info. I've also used their talkpage to both explain how Wikipedia works and to warn them of the consequences of their continued disruption. Semsûrî (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: The tribal population information is taken from Faik Bulut's Dersim Raporları, which itself states to have taken the tribal information from 'Erzincan' book by Ali Kemali which is as old as 1930s. So the information is too old and should be considered historic, but I am not sure. Also that may have been the reason for Deman2003's lack of information. However there behavior is not acceptable, and also this discussion has nothing to do at ANI, and should have been in dispute resolution. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violations (and nothing but)

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

---

All five edits by Siddhipalande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been copyright violations, two revdeled and three awaiting revdel, all copied from and even usually citing https://insightcommerce.blogspot.com/ . They were warned on 16[190] and 18[191] April 2024 but have persisted on 20[192], 23[193] and 25[194] April. They've also been warned about spam links. Time to block? NebY (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Siddhipalande was warned about copyvio from their first edit but has persisted each day. Account blocked indefinitely and their additions rev-del'd. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

New editor mass producing copyvio

I don't know what it is about steam locomotives, but I've been fighting people creating copyvio articles about them for months now. The latest account (and at this point I don't know if it's one person or multiple) is User:Cqww who made a whole bunch of drafts in March, and then woke up the other day after a month to do a page move. I've checked 4 of the drafts and every single one is blatant copyvio - can we block them? I also could use some admin assistance deleting their copyvio drafts. They're clearly not here to do anything besides copy from preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com. This editor may be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian40213. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: I looked at Draft:SECR P Class 178 Nettle and it doesn't seem to be a copyvio of the source given there. It doesn't seem to be a copyvio of [195] either. Am I missing something? Zero^talk 12:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, Cqww (at least with that username) did not "make a whole bunch of drafts in March", but actually has only created one draft ever and moved one existing article in April. Zero^talk 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If you look at Cqww's deleted contributions, there are nine deleted drafts from March. All were deleted as unambiguous copyright violations. --Yamla (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Confirmed socks found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian40213 (but not to Christian40213). I'm blocking and tagging. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Hakikatco

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

The user insists that their AI-generated images be included in articles. The images have been removed from the articles by multiple editors [196] [197][198][199], including me, but the user keeps restoring them, despite having been told that those images constitute WP:OR [200] [201]. They also insist on using non-independent sources, thus failing WP:SOURCE, despite having been told by me and other editors [202], [203], [204]. One of the articles they've edited reads like a promotional brochure because of the use of such sources [205]:

He was extremely smart and whatever book he wanted, he was able to understand in less than 24 hours no matter how difficult the subject is. He was able to understand 200 pages from the books like “Jam-al Jawami”, “Sharhul-Mawakif”, “Ibnul-Hagar” in less than 24 hours by reading himself.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

User:AManWithNoPlan being disruptive and abusive

User:AManWithNoPlan posted disruptive content on the phage therapy page, as seen here. After I gave them notice of revert, they proceeded to use abusive language, as seen here and here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AMwNP put a warning that the link, if followed, would take you to a virus. That was half right, in that the link just takes you to a ULR usurpation nonsense site. You templated them, and they reverted it, as is their right to do. Perhaps rudely, but templating veterans is also seen as rude, especially when you accused him of being disruptive when he clearly wasn't. This tempest in a teacup doesn't belong to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting the first warning while calling the OP clueless just made the OP escalate the warning, and then calling the OP an idiot just escalated it even more, that's precisely why no personal attacks is a policy, at least the templates are worded politely. Still, even if you minimized that, I do agree that this likely doesn't need intervention (yet). – 2804:F1...07:DBA8 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AManWithNoPlan, I cannot imagine any scenario where calling a fellow editor an idiot is anything other than a personal attack and a policy violation. Would you like to take this opportunity to withdraw that insult? Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AManWithNoPlan, also, since I decided to look because of the summary, what is this?: Special:Diff/1220775010.

If you really think the website tries to install malware (it sure looks pretty suspicious, but more in a scam way with the crypto ad it took me to), don't insert a link to it in the middle of the text, see also WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL about not linking(or hiding if it's official) URLs with malware. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:3468:323E:5807:DBA8 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh it did try to install a fake antivirus after claiming I had a virus on the second visit(even though websites can only prompt you to select a file, not read any file they want), lovely. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:3468:323E:5807:DBA8 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was still trying to decide how to still have the doi, but bot the link. That link varies from car ads (I am currently helping a friend buy a car) to malware, phishing, scams, and failing to work at all. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If Headbomb's assessment of the link is correct, the OP should be reminded of AGF and the reported editor should be reminded of NPA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Please think before templating someone. A malicious link should be removed, not highlighted. AManWithNoPlan did not remove the link but added a note. That was not desirable but putting a template on their talk was breathtakingly inappropriate. What about the actual issue? Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• How about someone revdeling that malware link before someone comes to grief? EEng 11:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. As it was the "Official Publication of Pakistan Research Evolution Scientific Society", not the university's (2014 archive), I've removed it from the current article but would be glad to see it revdel'd. NebY (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Ugh. It seems the URL was added in 2013, 216 edits ago. NebY (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued poor article creations by User:737-200fan

User:737-200fan has been warned at User talk:737-200fan#April 2024 about their unsourced or poorly sourced article creations like [[Draft:Air 1 (airline)] and Draft:Air 1 (airline) 2 (were both in mainspace) but continues to churn out airline articles like S-Air (Denmark) or Draft:Aviakompanija S-Air (moved to draft by me). Please topic ban them from creating new articles in the mainspace and require them to use the AfC process, or suggest some other solution for this issue. Fram (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious that the user's creation of non-viable articles is making an unacceptable amount of work for other users. They are pretty new, and should preferably be getting more experience, especially with sourcing, by improving existing articles before creating new articles, which is one of the more difficult things to do. I would be willing to do something about it, but I'm not sure I can. If I partial-block the user from "creating new pages and uploading new files", which is an option, that'll presumably also prevent them from creating drafts as part of the AfC process. Does that mean it has to be done as a topic ban (as Fram says) rather than a block? I don't think a single admin can do that. Aiming for a discussion here with a consensus to community topic ban seems a bit like shooting skeet with a cannon, but perhaps that's what we must do. Unless somebody else has a bright idea. Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

I don't get the feeling this user is intentionally disruptive, let alone malicious, they're probably just excited about this cool new thing they've discovered and merrily going about creating articles without realising (and possibly caring) that they're leaving quite a mess in their wake. I think it would be a pity if they had to blocked altogether, that's such a buzz-kill (!), but somehow they need to be helped to stay on track and apply the speed limiter so they can become a net-positive for the project, which IMO they currently aren't. The messages on their talk page haven't done the trick, so maybe a short block to get their attention, along with a 'friendly but firm' reminder to revise WP:V and WP:N, and requirement to work through AfC until they can demonstrate they got it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that getting experience by improving existing articles is usually a good way for new editors to start. Continuing to bang away at article creation when they are not yet able to do that harder task successfully is not as good a way to move forward. If their articles really are that non-viable, then creating them via AFC just makes more work for the AFC folks. So p-blocking page-creation would be reasonable IMO. Is it technically possible to yank confirmed to prevent mainspace creation? DMacks (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The user has just created Fosh Airways, again, with no notability. I've tagged the article for CSD under A7, and I support the idea of requiring them to go through AfC, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Spermworld edit war

Ree609nj and Josephwheels1980 have a long standing edit war on Spermworld which is distruptive. Jerrykolt123, Charlesgordon123, Mikethebeast123 may be sockpuppets of the users. ElENdElA (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked everyone as socks except Ree609nj.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and personal attacks by User:MRWH359

• MRWH359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irish indentured servants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2023 Dublin riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Black people in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:MRWH359 is a new user with less than 75 edits. On Irish indentured servants they have blanked large passages sourced to reliable, secondary sources. On 2023 Dublin riot they have added unsourced commentary to the article while altering phases in the article so that they do not align with cited sources. For example, they have removed terms like "Far-Right" in sentences sourced to reliable, secondary sources such as France24 which does use that phasing.

After I reverted them and explained clearly in the edit summary I was doing so on the basis of Wikipedia policy in regards primarily to sourcing, they launched into personal attacks. For this, they were warned to cease doing so by an Administrator, User:Acroterion.

After being warned to stop using personal attacks at 02:24 UTC, 02:50 UTC and 02:50 UTC, they continued to do so in the edit summary of this edit [206] to Irish indentured servants at 03:10 UTC and in this edit summary of this edit [207] to Black people in Ireland at 03:13 UTC.

I believe their most recent edits to Irish indentured servants and 2023 Dublin riot should be reverted and they should be warned for disruptive editing and temporarily blocked from editing. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was in the act of typing a long response to them on their talkpage and was edit-conflicted. We'll see what their response is - they need to start taking advice seriously and lose the "i'm right and you must be my opponent" attitude. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Cyxfr pretending to be an admin

User:Cyxfr is claiming to be a "moderator" on their userpage and has threatened to ban users while representing "wikipedia support". This occurred 9 hours ago so might not be considered urgent, but I would expect them to turn up again when the NFL Draft continues this evening. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Two possibilities: Either they're a sock socking. The use of hidden comments with like six edits in their contributions suggests past experience with wikis at least. Or they're the greenest of newbies and should be called in. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that they're just posing, and may have just enough experience as an IP to know what code to use. I've left them a warning and removed the moderator business from their userpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This is only tangentially related, but I do feel like we should not be assuming someone is a sock because they recognized an already-existing HTML comment and used it. That does not demand any kind of familiarity with Mediawiki in general, much less enwiki in particular. It only requires extremely basic knowledge of HTML, or even just general inquisitiveness when they see text in the edit tab that isn't shown in the article. I don't mean to specifically call you out on this, Simonm223; I feel like I see this kind of assumption that "basic competency in any facet of editing implies socking" increasingly often from all quarters, and I think we've lost the plot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have socks on the mind a bit with how backlogged WP:SPI is. Got to the point I was half-tempted to ask for adminship just to help move it along but it does mean socks are on my mind. I'll strike. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, you clearly know far too much about plots. I demand that you sign in under your original account! ——Serial Number 54129 13:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)