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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

User:AirshipJungleman29

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 [102].

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:

• [103] 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".
• [104] 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".
• [105] 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.
• [106] 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, [107], 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 [[108]]) "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)

Refusal to discuss addition of non-official Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones

Bringing to attention the chronic refusal by Visnu92 to discuss his persistent addition of Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones in Malaysia ([109] and [110]). Discussion had been opened in WikiProject Malaysia as there had been no guidelines on Chinese and Tamil scripts in infrastructure-related articles, but said user has repeatedly ignored discussions eventhough he was tagged, a clear-cut refusal to seek consensus. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I left a warning on their talk page, in very clear terms and linked them to WP:Communication is required. I told them that the next block for disruptive editing may be for an indefinite period. They have already been warned, and blocked, before for refusing to communicate while reverting others in controversial ways. If they don't respond now to this ANI report, it is likely that some admin will indef block them until they DO communicate. An editor isn't required to ever talk to someone, unless they keep reverting or making controversial edits, which disrupts the normal editing process for everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. In fact, here was the case that resulted in him (a male, going by his own page) being blocked previously. Evidently, said user has persisted with similar behaviour after the block. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping for Dennis Brown. Just to note that it's been 2 days and from his edit history the past few hours, apparently he can't be bothered to communicate or justify himself here at all. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can't block him for not coming here, no one is required to respond to ANI. He IS required to respond to the concerns, but his latest edit wasn't related to the reasons for the concern. Patience is recommended. He's only edited once, which was reverted, although I'm not sure why it was reverted as no one seems to use edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• I just indef blocked him for disruptive editing. Hopefully, indef won't mean forever, but if they aren't willing to discuss edits that are obviously against consensus, then they can't edit until the issue is resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Dennis hundenvonPG (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Abhirup2441139

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

---

Abhirup2441139 has in the space of c 24 hrs created five copies of Draft:Arup Das under different titles as well as on their user page and sandbox, most with significant copyvios. I believe there is also a COI issue, which the user has not responded to (they also implied as much, by saying that they got the permission to use "all the materials" from the family of the person in question). Finally, there is now a new account Ad1959 joining the fray (and offering to report me to "authorities"), which I suspect is a puppet of some variety. Could we please apply some brakes here? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

hello, it is noteworthy to mention here that -DoubleGrazing has deliberately denied publishing of an article regarding a sports personality for some unknown bias and instead of shedding some advice on how such article should be published as it is a biography of a sports personality, this person has gone to lengths to deny publishing such article, I urge you to kindly go through the article and kindly let the article be cross checked by some other person as this person has clearly violated his powers to deny such with reasons being absurd kindly request you to take appropriate action against -DoubleGrazing and re review the article by an unbiased and helpful person Ad1959 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked for sock or meat puppetry. Both drafts deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Bbb23. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we be concerned about this edit in the context of the one made immediately after? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• UTRS appeal #87622 is closed. On the user talk page, I noted the legal threat looking edit and the cries of discrimination.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add a NLT warning. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  legal threat withdrawn (?). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Further violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE with  Confirmed sock, Akatsuvalski12. --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Badly-written edits, WP:CIR issues and WP:OR by Baratiiman

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

---

Baratiiman (talk · contribs) has made multiple instances of mistranslated statements, incoherent grammar raising serious questions about their WP:CIR and WP:OR that had been flagged by editors over a period of time but has refused to address the issue despite several warnings on their talk page. Their latest target has been 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, where they have added material that is not supported by sources and falsely accuse me of censorship in the talk page. See

• [[111]]
• [[112]]
• [[113]]
• [[114]]

For further reference, I am also showing multiple complaints that they had from me and other users over their editing, which they have never addressed, as well as other examples of questionable editing. I have already raised this in ANI early this year but no action was taken:

• [[115]]
• [[116]]
• [[117]]
• [[118]]
• [[119]]
• [[120]]
• [[121]]
• [[122]]
• [[123]]
• [[124]]
• [[125]]
• [[126]]
• [[127]]
• [[128]]

For WP:CIR, a check of their contributions would find that a majority of their edits are badly written.

Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like they just received a one month Arb Enforcement block by ScottishFinnishRadish. Is that sufficient, or does this need a closer examination? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen this. Based on their block log and edits a deeper look is probably worthwhile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, their history of bad grammar appears to be exhaustive, and raises doubts over their good faith, but as I mentioned they have not addressed any concerns raised to them about this on their talk page, hence this report. Hoping that offending user finally takes stock of this. Borgenland (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Too late here for me to go digging, but on the surface, I would agree that a closer examination is warranted. What little I saw did raise questions about CIR and WP:TE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also this complaint from a user who happened to approach me over this, [[129]] Borgenland (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, I endorse a CIR block of some sort here. I haven’t had a ton of direct interactions with the user in question, but in what I have seen at the Ongoing portal, he tends to both use sources to make/exaggerate claims that aren’t in the sources themselves, and do so with a far-below-par level of English compared to what’s expected to contribute constructively here. As always, a mess created in good faith is still a mess. The Kip 15:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The quality of some of the edits made to Russian invasion of Ukraine makes me also support at least some level of restriction. It doesn't help that they seem to primarily edit in contentious topics, where the standard should be way higher than what they contribute with. TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Zarah Abdurrahman

Single-purpose account promoting Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, ignoring past discussion at Talk:Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi#Content written like an advertisement * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• This looks like (undeclared) paid editing to me, or they are so in love with the subject they just want to add puffery. Either way, it is either disruptive or a violation of the terms of use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have pointed out before that in the US (but not in most of the rest of the world) any training institute or degree mill can call itself a university and confer degrees. I was about to say that at least Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi has an honorary doctorate, but then I saw that it was from the California Metropolitan University. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Does any admin intend to do something here? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the best solution is here, to be honest. Their only edit since this started was to remove a little puffery in the lede. What really needs doing is gutting that article down to what actually is noteworthy, which I don't feel up to. For example, I don't see why the awards section even exists for non-notable awards, which is the padding that is propping up the puffery elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Page-blocked. Several users have made large edits to remove and tone down the promotional material, see here and here, but Zarah Abdurrahman immediately started building it up again. In September 2023, they removed the advert tag. This looks very much like an undisclosed paid editor, but whether or not, they are bad for the article. Even if they've done no harm since this started, Dennis (i.e., not in the past three days), they are a promotional SPA who has been working on the article since June 2023. We don't have to put up with that, and so I've blocked them from the article. They can still edit the talkpage. As for gutting the article, I agree, but I'm not going to do it, since I've taken admin action. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC).

LTA user created an account impersonating a religious institution, username promotion, and fringe theory promotion

For the past 2 years, an incredibly disruptive user has been vandalizing pages related to South Asian topics; with their primary MO to inflate census numbers in favour of their religion, write general statements which aggrandize their language, Punjabi ethnicity, and religion, and to include the Ravidassia religion as part of Sikhism (Ravidassias were formerly a schismatic faction within Sikhism, after an attack on one of their temples and religious leaders, they split off from the Sikh religion and compiled their own religious book)

They primarily use various 93*IPs which geolocate to Italy; some of their ranges include: 93.33.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.32.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.36.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.45.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) etc. Hundreds of individual IPs within these ranges have been blocked (often for a short duration of time) for repeated vandalism + disruption.

They recently created an account called DeraBallanOfficial, pretending to be the official representative of an apex Ravidas institution. Their user page promotes a fringe theory about the aforementioned attack on the Ravidas temple, which they've incorporated into their edits as well-[130], [131], [132]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If Ravidassias were part of officially part of Sikhism until 2009 that's only 15 years ago. How do you know that this account is the IP? Secretlondon (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I said I've been dealing with and reporting these 93 IPs for a very long time: you can see all my reports on ARV-[133] which are almost exclusively about this editor. They're pretty dedicated to this narrative surrounding Ravidassias. You can also see the same type of edits from the 93 IPs: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"DeraBallanOfficial" sounds like it is a straight up WP:UPOL violation whether they were legitimately an official representative of Dela Ballan or not. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account DeraBallanOfficial, because it was clearly deliberately falsifying information to promote its cause. However, the problem is clearly much bigger than that one account, and it needs more work. JBW (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @JBW, I requested indef semi protection for the pages this sock-farm persistently targets, it's difficult dealing with it because of how often the IPs oscillate, but unfortunately the requests were denied. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Southasianhistorian8: Yes. I notice the interesting comment "Protection is not necessary for issues with 1 or 2 users/IPs". I don't have time to look into this any further now, but I may possiblydo so tomorrow. JBW (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Southasianhistorian8: It took me longer than I hoped to get back to looking more thoroughly into this, but I have done so now. The range of IP addresses used is far too large to consider blocking all of them, and even totally blocking a lot of subranges covering all the editing would be problematic too. However, I have blocked the IP ranges 93.32.0.0/16, 93.36.0.0/16, 93.45.0.0/16, and 93.55.0.0/16 from the articles Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji, Dera (organization), Dera Sach Khand, Guru Ravidass Jayanti, Ramanand Dass, Ravidas Temple, and Sects of Sikhism for two years. It would be possible to add up to three more pages to that partial block (ten pages is the most that can be included in a partial block) but I have not done that yet, because I have not seen any other pages with substantial amounts of editing from this person, but you may well know of more, as you evidently have much more experience of this issue than I have. Other articles that I have seen, but with very small numbers of edits by this person, are Bihar, Gaddi Nashin, Religion in Bihar, Religion in the United Kingdom, and Satnampanth. It would also be possible to include more than ten pages by using smaller IP ranges for some of them. The range 93.33.0.0/16 is already totally blocked until 24 December 2024. Unfortunately, partial blocks in this situation are quite likely to just result in the person moving to other IP ranges, other articles, or both, so it's likely to be just a matter of damage limitation, rather than a cure. If you know of other IP ranges involved, or other articles significantly affected, please feel welcome to let me know, and I will consider extending the blocks. JBW (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @JBW for looking into this, a partial block is great because it reduces collateral damage and at the same time it will at least significantly hamper this user's disruption who primarily uses logged out editing. Thank you very much for this. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Shiva_Ayyadurai

Diff: There is obvious slander and even legal libel that I’ve recorded and sent in that him and other editors have been consistently returning to the page to keep up.

They also have a lot to say about me personally, so I'd rather not respond myself any further. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by EvergreenFir as a WP:SOCK of Fung4022. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither of whom appear to be HERE, but I have stock in WP:ROPE companies so I like to drive up its consumption. I've left Fung4022 unblocked for now. I doubt that it's the original account though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, so you're going long on ROPE...?  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Spam-only account

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

---

Zimidar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) enough rope given, seems to be here just to promote their clients. 95.107.255.234 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, their files on Wikimedia Commons have all been deleted, and they seem to be spamming on Urdu Wiki as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the timing and edits (the first 500 in particular), it does look like gaming to get extended confirm status. Plus I noticed MMW removed the AFC tag on their page (good move), after they moved a draft to Bilal Talib, which itself, DOES look like pure undisclosed paid editing, and its a dumpster fire of an article. I will let someone else send to AFD (it needs it), but it seems obvious from the sources and prose. I will credit to the patience they displayed getting to this point, which is rare, but it is still a problem that needs to be dealt with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I found this response to be a bit bizarre. [139] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at the deleted contribs (admin only link), it seems kind of obvious this is undeclared paid editing, particularly when I compare the English skills on the talk page versus the articles themselves, ie: they might not have written the prose themselves, a common paid editing style. I would like another admin or two to opine before I do anything, as non-admin can't see the deleted contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

User talk:Narek48thunderchicken26

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

---

Please remove TPA, there are WP:CIR issues and general misuse of TPA. Courtesy ping @ToBeFree. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Raid on Tendra Spit infobox

Recently, I conducted a review of the subject article in which the infobox was ultimately removed because it contained false, dubious or misleading information, some of which falls to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Once such material was removed, there was no reasonable justification to retain the infobox. A TP discussion was created at Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Review of article and Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Revert in which the issues relating to the infobox have been clearly articulated. Salfanto readded the infobox here with the view that an infobox was somehow mandatory for such an article. They have readded another version of the infobox here, which retains some (but not all) of the material identified in the TP discussion as being inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, the issue of whether or not an article ought to have an infobox is entirely unrelated to the question of the accuracy of the content in the infobox. If there are inaccuracies, correct them. If you want to remove the infobox, then make a policy based argument at Talk: Raid_on_Tendra_Spit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is the reinstatement of the dubious information that was identified and corrected. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton and WP:CPP

I would like to call attention to M.Bitton and what seems to be an intractable pattern of WP:OWNership and civil POV-pushing. I considered the edit warring noticeboard or DR (3O has already failed), but decided to come to ANI because this appears to be a longstanding pattern.

We have been talking for some time and his responses have been increasingly indefensible as he continues to wholesale revert any change to shakshouka. The article came to my attention because one of my randomly-assigned wiki-mentees asked for help. At first I thought M.Bitton was just a bit impatient and bitey with this newbie (I expressed that concern here), but I am now concerned that there is a much larger problematic pattern of behaviour. In this content dispute, M.Bitton has ignored this 3O and repeatedly reverted full-article edits over a single word in the lead: [140] [141] [142], refusing to engage constructively on the talk page: [143] [144] [145] [146]. I particularly want to highlight their response after that last revert, where they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources I had in fact just used: [147] [148] They appear to address my suggested edits here (apparently reading my contribution for the first time after reverting it) but not in a constructive spirit.

Their talk page history suggests that they have a pattern of obstructionism: [149][150][151] [152][153] [154] Especially worrisome to me are the edit summaries, where M.Bitton responds to these requests for more constructive editing by calling them insults. I got curious about whether this was a pattern; in addition to their block log, searching M.Bitton's name at ANI suggests that the Maghreb topic area has led them into conflict before: 2023 2023 2021 2021 2015

All of this suggests that there are major problems that have been going on for a long time. I truly do not care about shakshuka and am only trying to resolve, using academic sources, the content issue that my mentee was struggling with; nevertheless, I have been accused of POV-pushing and have found the article impossible to edit. Could an admin please investigate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We have been talking for some time no we haven't. While I have been making proposals on how to improve the article, your only input has been in response to the POV that you've been trying to impose through an edit war. Your first so-called bold edit involved a revert of Skitash's edit that sidelined my proposal and ignored everything that was said on the TP.

M.Bitton has ignored this 3O that's a lie! see my response them.

they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources that's another lie. Here's what suggested (inviting others to provide the needed RS).

They appear to address my suggested edits... not in a constructive spirit. the serious concerns that I raised with regard to your misrepresentation of the sources speak for themselves (there are others that I will highlight once you start responding). Understandably, it's a lot easier to run to ANI than to justify the unjustifiable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that you ignored the advice of the 3O, which was against your POV. For the rest, I honestly think the shakshuka talk page speaks for itself. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The quotes and diffs that prove that you lied talk for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe I have misrepresented the diffs here or the sources I attempted to use in the article. I am happy to provide any additional context or explanation requested by an admin looking into this matter. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what WP:OWN is. M.Bitton was simply restoring the article back to its longstanding version that has been in place for ages. I suggest you read WP:STATUSQUO, which advises against reverting away from the longstanding version amidst a dispute discussion to avoid an edit war. The talk page discussion doesn't show a clear consensus, and I don't find the arguments from Raturous and you compelling. Removing "Maghrebi" from the lead isn't justified, especially when the only source from a food historian in the article confirms it as a Maghrebi dish. Skitash (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus to rewrite: the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find[155] before my first rewrite and As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go)[156] before my second rewrite. Why should M.Bitton be allowed to (theoretically) do a full rewrite and not me? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Your out of context quoting has to stop. I only suggested a full rewrite of the origin section and I was looking for and sharing what I found on the talk page, while asking others to share any RS that could be used. What you did (misrepresenting the sources that I found, obliterating the etymology section and changing the lead section to push your POV) is simply unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur your arguments and those of Raturous are not especially compelling. I also don't see that the WP:OWN claims are particularly valid, nor do I think the claim that M.Bitton has failed to engage constructively at the talkpage is accurate. A cursory examination of the talkpage shows that this specific issue has been a flashpoint in the article's history over which there has been significant discussion and consensus, and M.Bitton has clearly laid out concerns with the changes and the need for high quality sources. Separately, some of the other evidence presented here is pretty poor: there is nothing wrong with the edit summaries M.Bitton has used on his talkpage; the contextless links and claim that M.Bitton has been to ANI about this issue multiple times ignore the outcomes of those discussions, at least two of which involved the other editor blocked, and the other three more or less exonerating M.Bitton. Strongly suggest this report, which seems disruptive, be withdrawn by the filer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Issues with User:晓谷

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

---

User:晓谷 is already blocked indefinitely on the Chinese Mandarin Wikipedia. The majority of their edits here are reverted. Every 2–3 months, they remove content from List of languages by total number of speakers and List of languages by number of native speakers to change "Cantonese" for "Yue" (but by doing so, they also tend to revert all other edits made in between):

• 2 April 2023
• 16 April 2023
• 17 April 2023
• 29 April 2023
• May 2023
• July 2023
• 13 August 2023
• 18 August 2023
• September 2023
• January 2024
• March 2024
• 5 April 2024
• 19 April 2024

I warned them on their talk page to no avail:

• 13 August 2023‎
• 18 August 2023
• September 2023
• February 2024
• March 2024
• April 2024

Not sure what else I can do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

They were confirmed to be a sock of some user on zhwiki. Hence I've requested a glock on meta:Steward requests/Global. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

User talk:Countscarter

Since registration, @Countscarter has been adding unsourced content along with providing little to no communication with other editors, including the near-total lack of edit summaries. They were also in a brief edit war over the article for Fixed (such as here), providing no references for justification and insisted on their edits through word of mouth. They have been warned for their actions about eight times (mostly for this month), including by me. After recent unsourced contributions on The Ark and the Aardvark (here) and Universal Pictures Home Entertainment (here), I decided I can no longer assume good faith in this user.

I've been tracking and mostly reverting Countscarter's edits for about a couple of weeks now since finding one of their contributions suspicious, although I have forgotten the initial article that grabbed my attention. I initially made a report on the Teahouse before moving to here out of suggestion by @Tenryuu and then deciding to wait afterwards to give another chance. Unfortunately, in the eight days since the Teahouse report, I found little to no improvements in Countscarter's editing, with only about a couple of edits (such as with here, albeit reverted) using sources. Lastly to note they've made dozens of such edits on Scene It?; I suggest someone review the article's quality since there's too many edits to focus on briefly. If I have done anything unintentionally out of malice, please let me know. Carlinal (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours as a means to get them to engage and left them a talk page message explaining this - I recommend that any further discussion continues there. firefly ( t · c ) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

User:John Foxe

On three separate occasions[157][158][159], User:John Foxe has removed maintenance tags while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. In the third instance, the editor was reminded of the policy and did it anyway[160]. The editor is highly experienced, having been on Wikipedia since 2006 and should know better than to engage in disruptive editing.--User:Namiba 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have thrice prompted User:Namiba to provide sourced evidence that maintenance tags were necessary for this Good Article, listed as such since 2009. He has not provided any, apparently believing his POV trumps the considerable number of secondary sources cited. Otherwise, there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page. (Interestingly, Namiba is also highly experienced and has been on Wikipedia since 2006.) John Foxe (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

[involved] @Namiba, If your goal is to collaboratively rewrite the article with neutral language, it doesn't really matter whether the article has a tag at the top during that rewrite or not. In fact, you'll probably get more cooperation from the regulars if you forget the tag at the top of the article and focus on the individual sentences you feel are too peacocky. Just my 2¢ ~Awilley (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that once someone tags an article, it is up to you to start the discussion on the talk page if you get reverted while removing it. Someone has to start. If the tag is truly superfluous, it shouldn't take long to get a few others to say as much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is both parties' job to start a discussion on the talk page. I have sympathy with John Foxe's position, but the article talk page is the place to discuss it. One thing that seems to have taken hold on Wikipedia is that you are somehow losing face by starting a talk page discussion rather than saying that the other party should start it. You are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I started a discussion about this on April 15. While the discussion has been ongoing, the tags were repeatedly removed. The tags are meant to encourage participation so removing them is an attempt to stifle a discussion.--User:Namiba 12:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I see now. I made the mistake of believing this user when he said, "there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for review of partial block from CopyPatrol

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

---

Hello,

I recently got "partially blocked" from CopyPatrol by JJMC89. I am writing to ask for someone to please review this block.

I am not here to "play games", or mess around with Wikipedia. All I wanted to do was help. I want to make it clear that I want to be a good contributor to the encyclopedia and I am happy to learn from my mistakes.

I understand that I have made some mistakes when using it, such as not following up on the copyright violations, and I am very willing to learn from this. However, I did not expect to be blocked completely and have a black mark on my record. I feel that this block is disproportionate given my actions. Particularly, I tried my best to use the tool properly. I know that this tool is not a toy. I think that it would be a lot better if I were informed of my mistakes, prior to such a block being imposed against me. I am more than happy to do more reading to further understand the tool prior to using it again.

Thank you in advance for reviewing my block and I look forward to a response regarding this. WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you first discuss this with the admin who blocked you? This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What exactly is urgent about this or what is the behavioral issue, other than your own, which resulted in your pblock? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not urgent. I think I posted it to the wrong place. Nevertheless, I will discuss this with the admin who blocked me. WizardGamer775 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Cfls

I would like to report user Cfls for their poor editing behavior, including large-scale deletions, bias, and lack of good faith in discussions. Cfls has been involved in numerous disputes on talk pages regarding editing decisions on Chinese academic institutions, university classifications, and content deletions. Their editing behavior has resulted in the loss of valuable content.

Some specific issues are:

1. Large-scale deletions: Cfls has repeatedly removed large amounts of content from articles like Fudan University, Shanghai University, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They have deleted well-sourced historical information and replaced it with minimal introductory paragraphs, significantly impacting the quality and comprehensiveness of these articles.

2. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Policies: The user often justifies these deletions by citing WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:BOOSTER, but fails to provide concrete explanations for why specific content violates these policies. They have removed references to reputable sources like Times Higher Education and Shanghai Ranking, claiming they don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, which contradicts established consensus on these sources. They appears to misinterpret policies like WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV to justify removing factual information and descriptive language.

3. Lack of good faith: Cfls often replies to criticism with long, passive-aggressive paragraphs (possibly generated by ChatGPT) and dismissive comments. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions, Cfls avoids addressing specific concerns and accuses others of bias or not understanding Wikipedia policies.

4. Talk Page Misuse: Cfls is now frequently emptying their talk page by marking discussions as "archived," even though these disputes are clearly not settled, which seems to be an attempt to avoid criticism. This behavior raises doubts about their good faith.

I kindly request that administrators review the editing history and talk page discussions of Cfls, and take appropriate actions (such as warnings, topic bans, or blocks) based on their findings. 61.224.112.80 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• We aren't going to go on a fishing expedition here. Unless you provide specific links and say what policy it violates, you are wasting your time and ours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Apology for not providing specific links earlier. I'm not an experienced editor. I would like to present the following examples of Cfls' behavior to demonstrate their mass deletions and lack of constructive engagement in discussions:

  Fudan University: Cfls eliminated a significant portion of the content in the "History" section, including well-sourced historical information, and replaced it with a minimal introductory paragraph. They also removed a paragraph explaining the meaning of the university's name, despite it being well-sourced.[161]

  Shanghai University: A large portion of the "History" section was deleted, with Cfls citing only WP:NPOV and WP:BOOSTER as justification, without providing any specific issues with the content.[162]

  Similar situation happened to Huazhong University of Science and Technology [163], Zhejiang University [164], and other smaller universities like Beijing City University [165].

  In each case, Cfls did not attempt to improve the existing content, find better sources, or engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. Instead, they consistently chose mass deletion as their primary editing strategy.

  Additionally, Cfls has been deleting criticism and ongoing disputes on their talk page by archiving discussions prematurely:

  Archived without resolution: A discussion about Cfls' edits on Chinese academic institutions was twice archived, despite the issue remaining unresolved. [166][167]

  Criticism deleted: Criticism regarding Cfls' unilateral archive was again twice deleted in another archived discussion. [168][169]

  I hope these specific examples provide enough evidence to warrant a review of Cfls' editing behavior. Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter. 61.224.112.80 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most of those are content, not behavioural, issues. You say that Cfls did not attempt to engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. Did you? I mean on article, not user, talk pages, which are where content issues potentially of interest to more than one editor are discussed. The claimed issues with their user talk page are non-issues. Anyone can delete almost anything from their user talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. The most serious issue that you raised initially was with the potential use of ChatGPT. I note that you provided no diffs for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the guidance. Sorry for not distinguishing between content and behavioural issues properly. I will use article talk pages to discuss content-related concerns in the future.

  As for the use of ChatGPT, it is challenging to prove with absolute certainty. However, I have strong reasons to believe that Cfls has been using it based on the distinctive language patterns and structure in their replies, as shown in the examples provided below. These replies are unusually long, overly formal, and contain complex sentence structures that are not typical of casual human writing. When put through zerogpt.com, the first response received a 57% GPT rating, which means a high likelihood of being generated by a language model.

  Here are first example (from Cfls' talk page):

  "I would like to emphasize that my edits were made in strict compliance with Wikipedia's mandatory policies, including WP:BOOSTER, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTADVERT. I encourage you to review these guidelines thoroughly before forming an opinion on this matter.

  Your observation regarding my edits on the pages of Chinese academic institutions is noted. However, it's important to clarify that these edits were not made irresponsibly or indiscriminately. My intention was to streamline the content to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. The substantial reduction in content, though seemingly drastic, was an effort to eliminate promotional material and unverified claims, which is a common challenge in Wikipedia entries about academic institutions.

  It's crucial to understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for exhaustive histories or detailed profiles but rather a platform for concise, reliable, and verifiable information. The decision to condense the content was based on the need to align these articles with similar standards applied globally to academic institutions on Wikipedia. It was not a move to undermine the importance or reputation of these institutions.

  Regarding your concern about the elimination of contributions from other users, it's worth noting that Wikipedia encourages continuous editing and improvement of its content. My edits were not intended to diminish the value of previous contributions but to refine the content for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

  In light of your feedback, I am open to constructive dialogue and collaboration. If there are specific concerns about the sources used or the content removed, I welcome a discussion on the respective talk pages of these institutions. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community." [170]

  The second one (While this one not as obviously generated by ChatGPT, it shows structural and linguistic similarities to the first example. The use of certain phrases and the overall structure suggest that it was influenced by, if not entirely written by, ChatGPT.):

  "I appreciate your engagement and the opportunity to further clarify my position and actions on Wikipedia. It's essential to address some misconceptions and provide a broader context for my edits.

  Firstly, the assertion that I have removed 'adjective words' and relevant links indiscriminately overlooks the core of Wikipedia's editing philosophy. My focus has been on ensuring that every piece of content adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), no advertising (WP:NOTADVERT), verifiability (WP:VERIFY), and no original research (WP:ORIGINAL). For educational institution entries, the anti-academic boosterism policy (WP:BOOSTER) is also in force. In many cases, 'adjective words' are laden with promotional or subjective tones not suitable for an encyclopedia, which demands objectivity. When links and references were removed, it was because they did not meet the reliability criteria essential for Wikipedia (WP:RS), not because of an oversight or disregard for the institutions' history, reputation, and impact.

  Your comments suggest a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and the inclusion of verifiable information. It's imperative to recognize that Wikipedia is not a platform for unmoderated praise or promotional content, but rather for balanced, fact-based information supported by reliable sources. My editing approach has been consistent across various articles, aiming to uphold these standards universally, not just for specific institutions or geographies.

  Accusations of targeting certain institutions or applying rules inconsistently are serious and warrant reflection. However, these claims are unfounded in this context. My edits across diverse subjects strive for consistency with Wikipedia's global standards, contributing to an unbiased and informative encyclopedia. This approach is in no way arbitrary but grounded in established guidelines.

  Concerning the allegations of a condescending attitude, it is not my intention to demean or belittle any institution or individual. My objective is to contribute positively to Wikipedia, fostering a respectful and collaborative editing environment. I encourage open dialogue and constructive criticism, which are foundational to our collective endeavor on Wikipedia.

  On the point of suspected sock puppetry, it was not an accusation but a precautionary measure advised by Wikipedia's policies (WP:SOCK). The integrity of the editing process is paramount, and adherence to these guidelines ensures a fair and transparent contribution environment for all users.

  In light of your feedback, if there are specific content that is intended to be added, please open a discussion on the respective talk pages of the institution and gain community consensus before adding the contested content. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community." [171] 61.224.112.80 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't look like ChatGPT to me. GPT Zero is really inaccurate, and 57% isn't that high of a score. I don't understand what is passive-aggressive about this - if anything, it is the opposite, as the text is very informative and links to several policies and is also open to other views. As Dennis Brown pointed out, your best bet would be to go to the talk page of all the articles and come to a compromise. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think GPT Zero tends to flag anything that is written in a formal register. To avoid it flagging you it is best to write things in 1990s textspeak (as some users think they should on Wikipedia), complete with "u" for "you" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  All good points above and below. I'd note that if we go back to older comments from Cfls like [172] [173] I'm not seeing a significant difference between what the IP highlighted and how they talked then. But that was in February 2022 so before ChatGPT existed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because something has a source, that doesn't guarantee it will be included. Otherwise, all articles would be a collection of trivia. As for the other edits he made, referencing WP:BOOSTER/WP:OR, that is what most people would call "good editing". He stripped out whole sections that were not sourced, and/or that simply were promotional or "booster-ism" in nature. This is a desired activity. I just glanced at a few of the edits and didn't see any problem with the edits, so many there is some middle ground on these, but there is no obvious policy violation going on with his editing. Again, just because something has a citation, that doesn't guarantee it will be included.

If you disagree, well okay, then go to the talk page of each article and present your case and let a consensus of editors decide what should and shouldn't be included. The end result might be your version, his version, or something in between. These are editorial decisions, made by editors, not admins. But his removal of content seems perfectly in line with editing policy. As for ChatGPT, that is simply conjecture on your part and you provide no evidence, or even a link to any specific edit that you feel was generated by ChatGPT, so I see no need to investigate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Points 2, 3, and 4 are largely vacuous: Cfls's communication is fine. It's a bit much to have an issue with the brief citation of guidelines, but then baselessly accuse them of using ChatGPT when they do decide to explain their rationale in detail. Whatever legitimate content disputes per point 1 that may exist should be discussed on the relevant talk page, per suggestions above. Remsense诉 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Danteishere

Continuously uploading undesirable posters of Vijay films. I believe the poster used should be the original release poster, but he uses re-release and teaser ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

that recent one was a old original poster 😨 I uploaded I found it on pinterest.com since recent Vijay old film posters are bad shape I was trying to use a hd poster what's wrong with that is it a crime? Danteishere (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghilli#/media/File%3AGhilli_poster.jpg Danteishere (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hold on. "I found it on pinterest.com"? So you are unaware of the copyright status of these and you're just uploading images you find on the internet without updating the copyright status and free use justification criteria? Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The movie was released on 17 April. When there's a poster advertising that date, best to use it, right? Alright, this user's most recent upload wasn't so bad quality, but the pic shouldn't be less than 220px. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The important thing is that its copyright is compatible or that we can use it under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. Quality and resolution are only relevant when those hurdles have been passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Its just 200px and hd good quality so I thought it comes under fair use sorry admin hereafter I won't upload without taking proper concern have a nice day🙏 Danteishere (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

IP & Editor1249339333 adding nonsense to BLP article as an attempt to tarnish reputation/attack the person

The following IP as well as user has been adding nonsensical/opinionated text to the Tarek Loubani article. You can see their additions in the lede as well as later in the article regarding Loubani being shot in the leg.

• 142.198.108.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Editor1249339333

Looking at the article history, you can see that Editor1249339333's initial additions were reverted by an IP and were added again. After I went ahead and reverted it myself, the IP 142.198.108.139 would once again add everything back, even after being warned by myself in both their talk page and in my edit comment.

Given the fact that their only edits are on the article about him, it's clear that the sole purpose of this IP & account is to attack Tarek Loubani. I'm requesting somebody with the authority to either lock the article, block the account/IP, or anything else that would be suitable for this. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The edit in question was about a minor charge, not a conviction, based on a primary source. It definitely falls foul of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME and probably other policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I have indeffed the account as NOTHERE and pblocked the IP from the article (with logged-in editors from that IP included). Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the edits in question then be RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Block lengths

Hi there! This is for @Smalljim: your talk page is semi-protected so I have no other way of contacting you.

You recently blocked Kiss.immak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WelshDragoon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – both are obvious vandalism-only accounts: Kiss is an anti-Israel edit warrior, Dragoon is an sockpuppeting LTA and harasser.

I am at a loss as to why both only got 31 hours off. In 31 hours, both will clearly be back doing the same edits again. This, to me, seems insane. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked them quickly to stop the edit warring. Being unfamiliar with either account, I was looking at the position when you pinged me. Expect amended blocks shortly. Incidentally I didn't choose to semi- my talk page and if Yamla were to choose to undo that protection, I wouldn't complain.  —Smalljim  20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a pretty extreme WP:LTA who was targeting Smalljim's talk page. Really nasty, deeply disturbing garbage. Smalljim, you are more than welcome to unprotect your talk page. 92.17.14.64, I'm sorry this affected your ability to reach out to Smalljim. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologise to both of you if I sounded angry/upset for not being able to reach Jim directly – the opening para of my post was to explain why I didn't go directly to Jim, as I wanted to do, and came here instead. It was emphatically not meant as a criticism of the semi-projection. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla. No problem, 92. It was quite hectic in AV-land for a while yesterday, and I think in rare situations like that it's best to block quickly using Twinkle defaults and reconsider later: I indeffed one; Ingenuity beat me to the other.

No doubt you've been told several times of the benefits of registering an account, so I won't mention it here ;-)  —Smalljim  08:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ghosting consensus & constantly reverting

• Artem Petrov CHV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I noticed hoax references and copy-pastes on the Chuvash page. I made changes to rectify them, but user Artem Petrov reverted them without providing any explanation. Subsequently, I created a section on the talk page, outlining all the reasons for the removal while tagging him and requesting his opinion. He didn't respond. (until literally this minute)
• I then created another section on his profile, inquiring why he continues to revert and suggesting that we collaborate to customize the page together. Once again, he didn't respond. Despite this, he continues to revert the changes. I kindly request any moderator proficient in linguistics to assist us in reaching a consensus. Auzandil (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• I really ask you to familiarize yourself with this issue, and it is worth considering that the dispute is only about the edits of the user Auzandil, I did not make my own changes, but only returned the article to the original version. The user tries in every possible way to hide, to make insignificant the main version of the origin of the people. Bringing under-recognized theories to the forefront in the process. Apparently, the member does not want to seek consensus, and he just rolls back edits to the version he likes for more than the third time in a day, apparently violating Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artem Petrov CHV (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

  You should both continue the discussion at Talk:Chuvash_people#Recent_changes, and if you're unable to work through your differences, follow the steps at dispute resolution. @Artem Petrov CHV:, I did notice in that talk page discussion that Auzandil is providing sources for their suggestions and you haven't. It would probably help that discussion along if you cited your sources. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm telling you, I'm not adding information from myself, I'm just returning the version of the article to the one that was before the user Auzandil. There is no contribution on my part so that I give them sources, I return an article written from the attached sources, which was consensual for a long time and satisfied everyone until an expert in the field of all languages appeared Auzandil Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was a dead article, poorly documented and changed a bit from month to month. No one including you bother to look at references and read them. Once again, no one says that Chuvash are definitely not Bulgars. But scholars are split into two/three on this matter. They are not sure whether Chuvash is Sabir, Bolgar or another distinct Oghur language. Readers will see the discussion in the article body on this matter. Both of our personal opinion does not matter. We cannot force article into one side. Be neutral.

  Why even the version old version you protected say "Since surviving literary records for the non-Chuvash members of Oghuric are scant, exact position of Chuvash within the Oghuric family cannot be determined." What does this mean, my friend? Tell me. We discussed once again in talk page. In etymology there is a reference you protected even it says it is debated whether Chuvash are direct descendant of Bulgars or Sabirs. Auzandil (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd I was waited him for a month to answer me. He keep reverted weeks to weeks without saying anything until now. Please find a volunteer moderator who will look at our discussion and create a latest version for the page. Auzandil (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You are both well past Wp:3RR on your edits. There's no obvious vandalism so any accusations of such, and valid reversion are invalid. And if you're reverting an article to a previous version, you're indeed endorsing that version especially when you do it multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I personally endorsing my version. A third mouth about this matter is needed for our discussion because consensus is impossible. I explained what and why I did in my version. If endorsement is clear, when the "hoax" and "copy-pastes" will come out in old version, he might get blocked for this. Auzandil (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that since you've reverted five times on that article to Artem Petrov CHV's four, unless his edits are deliberately sub-par the blockee is more likely to be you. I would suggest not reverting any other article at this point (and the same advice would go to Artem Petrov CHV). Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaming by Justin L. 1230

Last year, Justin L. 1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made hundreds of minor edits that are an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING EC, such as editing articles by adding a single letter at a time (e.g. [174] [175]). They are now making contentious edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area [176]. Can their EC status be revoked? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked EC. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Nirva20

This account appeared out of nowhere and was EXTREMELY active with page moves, racking up more than 19,000 edits in just 3 months, many of them article page moves. Most of the article page moves that occurred were abbreviations of the article subjects name, either dropping middle names or middle initials or other changes that served to shorten the article subject's proper name. I had some great suspicions about this account and brought them up on User talk:Nirva20 several times. I even mentioned my doubts to other editors/admins but without going through the article references myself, I couldn't easily verify that these page titles were improper and I didn't have the time to investigate the dozens of article page moves they did on a daily basis. I watch the Move log and they were a high volume page mover, I'd say many of their large edit count were page moves, all of them biographies.

They've now been identified as a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and I'm just wondering if there should be a review of their page moves. I'm not familiar with Rms125a@hotmail.com so I don't know if they were basically a competent editor and we can rely on these being valid page moves or not. I understand that this would be a big project to undertake but maybe there are editors who like projects like this. If on the other hand, Rms125a@hotmail.com was a good editor blocked for behavioral reasons, perhaps this is unnecessary so I'm calling on longtimers who have a good memory for your opinion on this. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

They have done 1754 page moves, according to their move logs. Though of course each move that left a redirect behind is 2 edits. – 143.208.239.226 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned at their talk page, this user has conducted at least several hundred incorrect page moves based on a misreading of WP:CONCISE, such as with Jonathan Plaut and Charles Herb. As horrid as it sounds to do in terms of time wasted for us volunteers, all of their moves should be either reviewed or reverted. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I started editing a couple of years after Rms125a@hotmail.com, and remember him as an editor that I never really trusted, so I think that any page moves need at least a quick glance to check if they are valid. If a random selection (statisticians may be able to advise on how many) is found to be valid then I suppose we can assume that most of them were, but at the moment my preference would be for someone (I know I'm not volunteering) to check them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

2607:9B00:6211:4600:7B45:4E4F:96C6:88F1

Hate message left[177] after warning them for several vandalizing edits[178][179] ArkHyena (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, deleted the attack page, and removed the attack from their talk page.-Gadfium (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

23.93.189.155

Repeat vandalism of Magnetar[180][181] despite being blocked recently over persistent vandalism of the same page and, vandalism of Mons pubis[182]. Protection of Magnetar may be needed. ArkHyena (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week. I don't think any protection is needed at the moment. Let me know if problem recur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 22 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 [183]. 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.[184][185][186][187][188]

    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[189][190] 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..[191]
    • 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.[192]
    • When other concerns about their behavior have come up on their talk page, the refer to it as unhelpful and unwelcome and harassment[193][194]

    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)

Sportsfan 1234

Back in the drawer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello there! I need your help. A guy named Sportsfan 1234 continues to investigate sockpuppets of the other account named Raymarcbadz and insists the admins block all the socks connected to the master. The editing of Olympic-related articles has been a major issue since June. He favored the users to ban the sock master and the other accounts from editing. Yet, he continues to baffle the socks and the sockmaster without any further reason. He never replies nor entertains my questions and comments. He destroyed the reputation of the user who spent 16 years editing Wikipedia articles. We need your help to stop and address this nonsensical issue. Thank you! DayangHirang4405 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) You're going to want to include diffs to substantiate the claims you're making. You also must notify the other editors involved of this discussion assuming you haven't already done so. It would be better to link to their names here using the User template rather than just listing them in plain text. DonIago (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Sportsfan 1234's intent to topic ban Raymarcbadz from editing Olympic-related articles was indeed personal. DayangHirang4405 (talk) 16:47, 22 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.

IP editor rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation

​​​​An IP editor (198.166.141.10) has been rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation. Some of the reverts were like this one related to the issue of "supported by" in conflict infoboxes. That was an issue that led to Rembo01 being blocked for IP-socking. But 198.166.141.10 was also rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation on 5 December 2023, and the IP is from Canada, whereas the IPs that Rembo01 was suspected of using were from Indonesia. I suspect that 198.166.141.10's activities are unrelated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've already reported this IP editor on WP:AIV prior to Toddy1 reporting the issue to ANI. IMO, 198.166.141.10 is clearly not here to contribute constructively, as his edits only involve reverting mine (as well as FOX 52's) edits. And, considering that this pattern of reverting began in December 2023, it seems unlikely that they are connected to Rembo01, who was recently blocked . Ckfasdf (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: 198.166.141.10 is now blocked for a week. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruption by paid editor Topg1985

• Topg1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:William John Titus Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist)

The paid editor Topg1985 has been tendentiously persisting in working on a draft that was Rejected by an AFC reviewer (and in my opinion the rejection was appropriate) after being declined six times, mostly because a deletion discussion had already found that the subject of the article does not meet notability. As the nomination in the AFD shows, articles about the subject have been repeatedly created since 2020, probably also by his agency's paid editors by the gaming of titles. Topg1985 has now been a nuisance at the AFC Help Desk (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#20:42,_21_April_2024_review_of_submission_by_Topg1985).

Topg1985 continued working on the rejected draft after being explicitly told to stop working on it because it was rejected, at which point the reviewer, User:HouseBlaster, nominated the draft for deletion. But MFD is a content forum, and the user's conduct should also be dealt with. Topg1985 also told User:Theroadislong to stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FHelp_desk&diff=1220258953&oldid=1220256037 The allegation of trolling is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

INDEFfed I went with DE, but UPE applies as well. They are an utter drain on editor time and project resources. Thanks for the reminder @Robert McClenon via this post. I saw it earlier at AfC but then lost track of the thread. Star Mississippi 02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @Robert McClenon for bringing this time sink here, and to @Star Mississippi for plugging it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.[195] 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.

User:Is made by people like making threats

The user Is made by people like started making threats at me on their talk page by threatening me to k*ll myself after I politely warned them that they need to cite a reliable source. I told them this, and said that if they keep making threats like this, I would notify the administrators. However, as you'll see on their talk page, they continue to call me a liar and tell me to die. Is it possible to state an indefinite block for this user? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed with TPA quickly revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That was fast. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nearly impossible to block these Sydney IPs

• 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.[196][197][198] They have also changed release dates with no reference. This has been happening for more than a year,[199][200][201] 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)