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)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Can you please show what supports this claim? [54] The proposal is ongoing, and current agreement seems to be a least an image restriction. Pataliputra shouldn't just be able to get away with whatever they want. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  HistoryofIran at the top of this page it says "Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III." It is not your responsibility to clerk this page on behalf of the administrators by altering this intended feature of how ANI functions, whether or not you feel Pataliputra is "getting away with what they want". Although this discussion has been open for over a month now and is the oldest discussion at this page by a margin of two weeks, the proposal has only attracted five !votes in a week, and none for three days. I request that if you feel a DNAU is needed, you ask an administrator to add it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not convincing. I can name you countless threads which have led to the block (often indef) of someone thanks to a DNAU. If not for that, they would still be roaming around, doing their disruptive editing, and thus hurting this project. Some threads take longer than others to reach a conclusion, especially if they are longer. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [55].

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"... [56]: 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,[57] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[58] 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[59] which was reverted[60] 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 [61]), 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" [62]. 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 [63] ("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 [64] 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 [65]). Turkic slave soldiers speaking Turkic (shock!) means that that the language had a status in the Ghurid system? With your WP:SYNTH logic, we should starting adding "Turkic" to the infobox of about every medieval Middle Eastern dynasty (including the Abbasid Caliphate) due to the popularity and power of Turkic slaves, perhaps "North Germanic" to the Byzantine Empire due to the Varangian Guard, Persian to the Abbasid Caliphate due to their Persian bureaucracy and so on. I'll try to avoid to responding too much to your comments, I feel like there is more than enough evidence to warrant a topic ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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

• Support as proposer. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a general topic ban as the evidence provided has been weak. Would support a restriction on image-adding, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I was reflecting if I was being too harsh here. But then I once again realized, Pataliputra has engaged in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and image spamming for YEARS. And when they try to justify/ignore it here and even resort to several WP:ASPERSIONS, that makes it hard to have WP:GF. If nothing happens, I think they will continue with this. I don't mind if the topic ban is less severe/decreased to less topics, but I don't think a image adding restriction alone will be enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose TBAN, support restriction on adding images to articles, trout for WP:OR issues. As someone uninvolved who doesn't edit in this topic area, I see a relatively prolific editor with bad habits. If they don't stop adding OR to articles about churches further action should be taken, but I don't think there's enough here to merit a complete TBAN. There is more than enough evidence to show that they do not have good judgement on adding images though. BrigadierG (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment and provided evidences. Pataliputra was blocked for sockpuppetry in December 2017 and unblocked in June 2018.[66] Now they have a clean record and they just use their main account. So again, 6-month or 1-year topic ban could be helpful. Another point is their comments prove they think their edits were 100% OK. When a user refuses to accept his/her mistakes, then it is time for topic ban or block. Final warning or ultimatum does not work for cases like this especially since Pataliputra doing such stuff for years. They can edit other topics/articles and then appeal for unban after 6-month or 1-year. As for images, a strict restriction is necessary. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi, part 2

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

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

Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [67], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [68] [69], but they were mostly fruitless.

Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [70] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [71]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [72]
3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [73] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [74] [75] [76] [77]
2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [78]
3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [79], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [80]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [81] [82]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [83] [84]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [85] [86] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [87] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [88] [89].

Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [90], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [91]
2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [92], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [93]
3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [94], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [95]
4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [96] [97]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [98]
5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11

Jonharojjashi more or less restored [104] the unsourced edit [105] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

Closing remark

In made response to my previous ANI [106], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [107] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

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

So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.

Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.

Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.

1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of

Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?

1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [108]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [109] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [110] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.

Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing issues of Jonharojjashi

I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial^[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Dalton Tan

Reposting because it was immediately removed by an archival bot.

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

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

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

Yes, and again, Dalton Tan (using the Aviation Novice account), changed the stopping pattern in the station list of the Tōyoko Line article without explanation and against what reliable sources state. Prior to the creation of their second account, Dalton Tan has been ignoring all the previous warnings put in place regarding the introduction of deliberate factual errors into articles which they should not have done. Their persistent disruptive editing (and perhaps also WP:NOR violations) led to several other editors (including me) having to undo or manually revert a number of unsourced and unexplained edits this editor made to more than twenty Railway lines and services articles (further examples including [111], [112] and [113]). Hence, I also agree that blocks to be imposed on both of these accounts. ~ SG5536B (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I am the one who reverted his edits on the Hankyu Kobe Main Line. There is a station called "Tsukaguchi", but he described it as a limited express stop and misinformation. [114] In the case, Tsukaguchi is a limited express slew station, which is evidence of misinformation. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

I have also reverted numerous changes by this user. A bunch of my recent changes are all reverts of his changes. See: Special:Contributions/Ergzay. I'd be fine if they were just restricted from any editing on Japanese rail-related pages. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A week has passed since the start of the discussion. If you look at the current course of discussions, there is a consensus to block. Is it Is it okay to block as it is?--H.K.pauw (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Hakikatco

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

The user insists that their AI-generated images be included in articles. The images have been removed from the articles by multiple editors [115] [116][117][118], including me, but the user keeps restoring them, despite having been told that those images constitute WP:OR [119] [120]. They also insist on using non-independent sources, thus failing WP:SOURCE, despite having been told by me and other editors [121], [122], [123]. One of the articles they've edited reads like a promotional brochure because of the use of such sources [124]:

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

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

• Also contains a puzzling reference to a speech in the newspapers delivered by William Gladstone, the British Secretary for Colonies -- to my knowledge, Gladstone never delivered newspapers. EEng 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa

  The sentence mentions a speech delivered by Gladstone in the newspaper, not "Gladstone the paperboy" , I think you just want to not understand the written sentence.

  Your argument that "a religious publisher's books on a religious topic cannot be independent" is baseless per your own reference WP:IIS:

  Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.

  I asked you multiple times to prove the conflict of interest or non-independence , but you failed to provide any proof for this. Hakikatco (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion where I asked about non-independence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aisha#Marriage_age_of_Aisha Hakikatco (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  a speech delivered by Gladstone in the newspaper – What in the world was Gladstone doing delivering a speech in a newspaper? Sounds decidedly unparliamentary! EEng 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not a speech in the newspaper, a speech in the parliament later mentioned in the newspaper:

  After reading in the newspapers a speech delivered by William Gladstone, the British Secretary for Colonies, where he stated "so long as the Muslims have the Qur’an we shall be unable to dominate them. We must either take it from them or make them lose their love of it."

  Now I rephrased it in the article Hakikatco (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  the parliament later mentioned in the newspaper – Is there a parliament that's not mentioned in the newspaper? EEng 03:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  The unmentionable parliament. Levivich (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Parliament was mentioned in the newspaper according to Nursi Hakikatco (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  I give up. EEng 02:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Hakikatco: I'm not sure if you really can't understand the first paragraph of WP:IIS (in this case, WP:CIR problem) or if you deliberately don't want to understand or listen to people's explanations about it in order to keep using your non-independent sources (in this case WP:IDHT). Either way, it's a waste of other editors' valuable time, and I suggest you drop it.

  An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly clear NOTHERE to me. The Kip 20:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And this is from Said Nursi's own biography, If he says he read that in the newspaper, that means he stated he read that Hakikatco (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The newspaper bit isn’t my problem so much as the rest of this report, which you’ve thus far failed to counter. The Kip 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AI generated image is generated using Chatgpt by only prompt , there is no "original research" as described in WP:OR

I already countered the other stuff , let me know what you think i didnt Hakikatco (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is self-evident that no one should ever paste anything produced by ChatGPT (or any other modern "AI") into a Wikipedia article under any circumstances. I find it hard to conceive of the level of confusion that would lead to someone thinking it's ok. --JBL (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If the user in question doesn’t understand why AI-generated content isn’t allowed on Wikipedia, I question whether they have the competence required to constructively contribute here. The Kip 00:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip which policy of wikipedia are you referring to? you clearly dont have any competency to name the imaginary policy you keep talking about Hakikatco (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You have already been told this, WP:OR. You are pushing the button on ChatGPT or a similar service and telling it to generate an image. We don't do that here, any more than you'd be allowed to draw a caricature of a person and use it in an article. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras you are not making sense,

I already responded to the comments about WP:OR vio above,

AI generated image is generated using Chatgpt by only prompt , there is no "original research" as described in WP:OR

I already countered the other stuff , let me know what you think i didnt Hakikatco (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Hakikatco (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras Are you assumign the opposite? that the content should be original per WP:OR ? Hakikatco (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco: You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Where is my country Hakikatco (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco If you're looking for a possible policy against using an AI generated image in an article, it's to do with copyright. It's well-documented that AI such as ChatGPT use external sources such as other artists' work to generate an image such as the one you created. According to a certain US court ruling, that's okay; it counts as fair use. The problem is that usage of non-free images, let alone an image that can only possibly be used under fair use because it itself was also generated under fair use, is expressly disallowed by WP:NFCC unless no free alternatives exist, which probably doesn't apply in your situation since many of the articles you've attempted to add your images to already have free images anyway. And there's no possible method of licensing it under a free license, either; fair use, if I recall correctly, does not allow you to relicense the result under a free license. Do take this with a grain of salt; US copyright law isn't my specialty; but that's one major roadblock to you using an AI image in an article, I'm afraid. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm retracting the above as the grain of salt required is far larger than I'm comfortable with. I'm sorry if I misled you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that much isn't established in Wikipedia policy; copyright laws on AI-generated things and how it relates to the copyright for the training set are still legally unsettled, so it's certainly not an a trivially obvious application of our content policy. We would need an actual statement somewhere in policy to ban AI generated material, and so far all attempts to reach a consensus on that have failed. See eg. discussions here and the numerous discussions surrounding Wikipedia:LLM, which ultimately led to it being an essay rather than a policy. Hakikatco's editing has numerous other issues but they are correct that we lack a specific policy that generally bans AI-generated images - and not because "it's obvious" but because numerous attempts to create such a policy have been unable to come up with a version that could reach consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologise for the possibly hypocritically WP:OR-levels of wikilawyering. But since the OP was asking for a "policy" reason as to why their images weren't permitted, I thought I might attempt to add one. It would still be an interesting exercise to see if fair-use derived AI images can also only be used under fair use (and thus fails WP:NFCC). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Apart from the ongoing discussion to create a general ban on AI-generated images, I believe that in this specific case, the user's inclusion of images generated based on their interpretation of a primary source (a book written by the subject himself [125]) violates a policy that we actually already have, that is, WP:OR. It is mentioned in its WP:PSTS section that:

All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Also

original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

Are the AI-generated images the user used also being used by reliable secondary sources? I don't think so, it's AI-generated images after all. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support block. Call it NOTHERE, CIR, persistent IDHT, whatever. Hakikatco should not be editing here. Woodroar (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support block continues to edit-war their preferred shoddy AI images among other things into articles. Since they will not stop on their own, a preventative block seems necessary. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef: Normally I would advocate for a TBAN of some kind, but starting their editing by [d]elet[ing] false info propogated by Turkish gov (in other words WP:RGW), then edit warring at Said Nurs, then adding AI-generated images which poorly portray the subject in a realistic sense along with original research in the captions and violating copyright, it is almost fascinating how many policies Hakikatco has managed to break. Of course this could change, but I think it would be in Hakikatco's interest to take a break, read some policy, and then contribute constructively. Or if they can't do it on this project due to CIR issues, go to a project of their native language. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• An indefinite block seems excessive - Hakikatco has never had a block before - not here, and not on Commons. Other editors who are far more disruptive than Hakikatco get short blocks, and if they continue being disruptive get a longer block, and if they still do not get the message they get an indefinite block. If you look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A Repeated Statement, he/she has at last got the point that he/she had misunderstood some of our policies. If I were an admin, I would award Hakikatco a 72 hour block, with the warning that if there are any more uploads or links to AI photos it will be indefinite, and a warning that if he/she fails to get the point like he did at Talk:Aisha#Marriage age of Aisha followed up by forum-shopping, etc., he/she is likely to get a 2 week block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Normally when considering whether to use an indefinite block or timed block, it is good to consider whether the user has made any constructive contributions at all. They have continued to edit war, add original research, etc. despite numerous warnings on edit summaries, the article talk page, and their user talk page. They have only been focused on one topic (mostly one page even) for the 150 edits they've been here. I cannot see them making constructive edits to another part of the encyclopedia. The metaphorical rope strategy seems to be unnecessary and a dead end here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Competence is required and is very sorely lacking. Cjhard (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef - somewhat thought an indef would be too harsh for a user not previously blocked (despite my own opinions above), but the comment chain below “A Repeated Statement” confirms serious CIR and IDHT issues. The user in question’s behavior doesn’t indicate they can become a productive contributor to the project. The Kip 16:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef: I had thought that if they were told by more editors and admins, or perhaps a few days of blocking, that might be enough for them to mend their ways. But it turns out that their WP:CIR/WP:IDHT and POV-pushing issues appear to be quite severe. I'm afraid that if they are allowed to continue, it could lead to unnecessary extra work and mental strain for other editors. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block. The discussion above is a complete shambles and reads like wikihounding - especially the whole conversation about the Gladstone quote in a newspaper where there appears to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding going on. Much of the rest of the discussion seems to be based on an assumption that we have an explicit policy against using AI-generated images in articles - and we don't. There are some behaviour issues here around slow motion edit warring - being asked not to put the images back and doing so anyway, without obtaining consensus. But certainly not enough for an indef block. The user is engaging in discussion here and hasn't edited disruptively since this post was opened - since blocks are preventative not punitive there's absolutely no reason for a block, certainly not an indef one. WaggersTALK 08:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can see the logic of a warning without any block. It might work. There is also a logic in a short block, because it would act as a warning. Which is better is a judgment.

  But an indefinite block is not warranted. It would not be fair.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Blocks are not there to act as warnings. That's against the blocking policy. WaggersTALK 10:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Waggers: Regarding the discussion about Gladstone's alleged words, you might want to ask @EEng who was involved in that discussion with Hakikatco. Concerning the AI-generated images inserted by Hakikatco, specifically this one, I, as well as apparently a number of other editors above and in Said Nursi's article, believe that in this particular case it violates a policy we already have in place, namely WP:OR. This is, I think, because the image is merely Hakikatco's or the AI's original interpretation of the text of the book authored by the subject of the article, and there is no reliable secondary source that contains this image. If you feel otherwise, and that the AI's image is appropriate for use in the article, perhaps you could bring it up on WP:ORN or Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts. As for Hakikatco engaging in discussions, yes. But from my observation, I think we have also had several cases where users have been banned based on WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues, even though they were actively participating in discussions. This seems to have been done to prevent them from causing more timesink and mental load for other editors to get them to understand, and to prevent them from causing more work for other editors to check and fix their edits. An example might be this case. Hakikatco's difficulty or refusal to understand what several editors have explained about religious sources not being independent, and how borderline ridiculous some of Hakikatco's arguments are, just convinced me that we have somewhat similar problems at the moment:

  Their reasoning that their religious source meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL [126]:

  many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article

  In response to my comment that what we need are secular scholarly sources [127]:

  Secular sources dictating what religious concepts are on behalf of religious sources , what a great idea , you are super competent

  Their defence of their sources being independent and having no conflict of interest [128]:

  But if I have an interest in a .cause and I am sacrificing my money, time and personal life (and for some people this is jail time or even death ) for that cause, this is considered sacrifice which is exactly the opposite of vested interest

  Referring to himself/herself as "editors" (plural) [129]:

  "Editors" here refers to generic version of "Editor", similar to mentioning someone as "they" instead of "he/she", normally I could've said you attacked me but preferred to use a generic phrase to keep to focus on the fact that some editors were attacked, for me attacking one person is same as attacking any people, and I dont like being talked about

  and the cherry on top of the cake [130]

  I am ignoring your statement, and I think you need to Improve not me, and have an objective mindset to edit here , I m still laughing at your comment on
  What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Religious sources can be independent, there is no such policy stating they cannot Hakikatco (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  And I rephrased "I am ignoring your statement, and I think you need to Improve not me, and have an objective mindset to edit here , I m still laughing at your comment on

  What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers" already

  Hakikatco (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa: I think that these problems could be fixed by a stiff warning - my personal preference for that warning would be a short block that explained clearly what the problems were, and what would happen if they were repeated.
  Hakikatco is not a big problem. He/she is willing to discuss his/her edits/misconceptions on the article talk page and in forums like this one. I can see that a good person could misunderstand some of the rules and practices on Wikipedia. So a warning (in the form of a short block) about where he/she has been getting it wrong might be the right answer.
  We need to think about the message we want to send. Do we want him/her to fix his/her mistakes? Or do we want to tell him/her that life is unfair, and the best solution is to cheat (create sock accounts, edit war, refuse to discuss edits, etc.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly this. What we need from Hakikatco is an acknowledgement that they understand images based on a text description are not suitable for inclusion and a commitment to not add them in future. With that commitment in place we can close this and move on. I'm not sure what the rest of the fuss is about. WaggersTALK 10:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok i wont add images based on text description Hakikatco (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Waggers: I think you misunderstood what Toddy1 seems to be suggesting. Here I quote their statement:

  I think that these problems could be fixed by a stiff warning - my personal preference for that warning would be a short block that explained clearly what the problems were, and what would happen if they were repeated.

  And no, Hakikatco's AI-generated image is not the only problem here. There's also the problem that they are still unable or unwilling to understand, despite explanations from me and other editors, that religious sources are not independent sources, especially for the history of that religion. Various editors have also noted WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems with Hakikatco, especially in the discussion under "a repeated statement" below. In total, as of 14:30, 1 May 2024, there seem to be 9 in favor of blocking Hakikatco, with 5 suggesting indef. Is it appropriate to turn a blind eye to their concerns and let Hakikatco continue with only a promise not to include AI images, which is only a fraction of the overall problem with Hakikatco? Also, have you read my response to your comment above, which includes some quotes from Hakikatco's arguments that I find quite absurd? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC); edited 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  To suggest I'm turning a blind eye is to assume bad faith. There are definitely problems with Hakikatco's edits and attitude, I'm not denying that. All I'm saying is they have stopped editing articles while this discussion is taking place and they are engaging here. On that basis I see no reason to block them at all. They clearly want to contribute and need some patient guidance to learn how to do so constructively. Turning everything into a heated argument that results in one or more editors being indef blocked only servers to harm Wikipedia. There's potential for Hakikatco to be a good, constructive editor, if we'd only give them a chance - and point out where they're going wrong without threatening them with a ban every time we do so. They joined Wikipedia less than a year ago - they're still a newbie and we should not be biting them. WaggersTALK 14:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would be cautiously content if an admin were to close this on the basis of Waggers' post of 14:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC). Hakikatco has made two useful concessions (a) that he/she accepts that he/she misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and (b) that he/she will not add images based on text description. Waggers' suggestion is not exactly how I would do it, but it is far more sensible than an unwarranted indefinite block. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Hakikatco might have admitted that his understanding of WP:EXCEPTIONAL was wrong [131]. But his follow-up statements after that are even more absurd [132][133]:

  many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article

  many bookstores publishing the article supporting this theory shows the endorsement of it

  And the CIR/IDHT continued even after that. [134][135]

  who are you tell me I am not following rules, does Wikipedia allow more tenured users to oppress other ideas

  Secular sources dictating what religious concepts are on behalf of religious sources , what a great idea , you are super competent

  that he/she will not add images based on text description.

  His recent posts [136][137] in reply to The Kip:

  Does my AI generated image illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments? No, it does illustrate a published text

  However to be on the safe side I think we can stop using AI gen images

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Waggers

  they have stopped editing articles while this discussion is taking place

  That's not entirely accurate. I posted this report at 01:41 on April 26, 2024. At 14:55 and 15:06 the next day [138][139], Hakikatco reinstated his edits on Said Nursî (an article he mainly edited), which were later reverted by Zathras [140]. Hakikatco had been warned about edit-warring and told to discuss if he didn't want to be blocked [141]. Perhaps that's why he engaged in the discussion and stopped restoring his version.

  They clearly want to contribute and need some patient guidance to learn how to do so constructively.

  Patience? Excuse me, but have you ever had a discussion with him and tried to inform him directly that his edits are not in line with our policies and guidelines? I have; in fact, I think I've been the one interacting with him the most lately on Wikipedia. And frankly, the experience is truly frustrating. The lack of competence is just too much, and he just refuses to listen to what people are telling him. This type of user, as AirshipJungleman29 said, is the sort most likely to drive away good content editors [142]. And the loss this causes Wikipedia is clearly much greater than the benefits of having users like him. That's probably why 10 editors so far support blocking him [143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152], with 6 supporting indef [153][154][155][156][157][158]. People have limited patience, and that patience is much better spent on those who actually want to listen and are at least reasonably competent.

  if we'd only give them a chance - and point out where they're going wrong without threatening them with a ban every time we do so.

  If you look at his most recent replies, he's still saying that his AI-generated images are appropriate [159], but because just "on the safe side" [160], he can stop inserting them. Okay, for the case of AI images, then what about his other issues and the ones he's likely to cause in the future given his serious CIR/IDHT problems? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I'm persuaded. The IDHT issue in particular is a big cause for concern. I don't like the way this thread turned into a pile-on, riddled with false assumptions, straw-man arguments and distracting tangents - but the advantage of that is that multiple people have tried to explain the same thing, in multiple ways, yet the message still hasn't landed. WaggersTALK 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support a block: the editor exhibits WP:IDHT and WP:CIR behaviours and is clearly a WP:TIMESINK, judging by #A Repeated Statement. The sort of editor that is most likely to drive good content editors away if not sanctioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I nominated their commons uploads related to this issue for deletion a few days ago and it looks like they will be deleted if that holds any relevance to this discussion. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That will help.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef for disruptive editing of the WP:CIR and WP:TIMESINK kind. Their comments in this very ANI thread show that they do not understand independent reliable sourcing, instead try to push tendentious sources, and are not willing to learn at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kaalakaa Disruptive editor

The user has been making disrupting edits to the Wikipedia content [161] [162] [163] [164]

- The user deleted a 105 years old photo claiming "it seems AI generated" [165]

The user appears to be misinterpreting Wikipedia policies to justify these edits

In the below thread they state that the content added to Aisha page is not an independent source violating WP:IIS Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hakikatco, when asked about what kind of vested interest the author of the content has (which is the criteria to decide a source to be non-independent) , instead of providing an answer they attack the editors using insults : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hakikatco , here they are calling other editors incompetent and asking them to leave Wikipedia English and edit non-English Wikipedia pages: "You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good."

Hakikatco (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

All of these edits are fine. I would have made them myself. I have to laugh at File:Bediuzzaman after Russian camp.png, which you uploaded on 17 August 2023 and sourced to Flickr, where it just happened to have been uploaded on the same date. If not AI generated, this image has clearly been manipulated to the point of uselessness. Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be a very manipulative copy of this image,[166] there's many different copies online but I can't find details of where it originally comes from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting MOS:HOTLINK

AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

I can't say with certainty that it's an ai upscale, but given the similarities it does look like it might start quacking to me. Shaws username . talk . 00:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a pencil illustration to me, based on the original photograph. I know a lot of illustrators with that style and I'd lean in that direction. Could be an AI faking a pencil illustration or a CGI one for that style. Canterbury Tail talk 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco:

when asked about what kind of vested interest the author of the content has (which is the criteria to decide a source to be non-independent) , instead of providing an answer they attack the editors using insults : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hakikatco , here they are calling other editors incompetent and asking them to leave Wikipedia English and edit non-English Wikipedia pages: "You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good."

This is a gross misrepresentation of my comment and a violation of WP:TPNO. Please strike that. That comment of mine was directed solely at you, as I clearly mentioned @Hakikatco at its beginning [167], with no other editor mentioned. And it was a reply to your still refusing to listen to what multiple editors had explained—that your AI-generated images were violating WP:OR. It was not a response to your supposed inquiry about "what kind of vested interest the author of the content has," which had been explained by me and other editors on a separate talk page [168], which you couldn't or refused to understand. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa

"Editors" here refers to generic version of "Editor", similar to mentioning someone as "they" instead of "he/she", normally I could've said you attacked me but preferred to use a generic phrase to keep to focus on the fact that some editors were attacked, for me attacking one person is same as attacking any people, and I dont like being talked about

As other editors pointed out there is no AI Generated image ban policy on Wikipedia , to those others opposing this please show the policy to support it. WP:OR is not violated because there is no "original research" as required by WP:OR , how is that I send to chatgpt a prompt like "give me an illustration describing this page" an "original research"? You implied I violated WP:IIS and WP:YESBIAS which are not even policies but essays

I still responded to your comment about WP:IIS and asked you to show the conflict of interest or vested interest as required by non-independence criteria of WP:IIS starting Apr 14 , and continued on Apr 26th , as a response you called me incompetent on 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) and asked me to leave Wiki English in the parallel thread on 27th Apr as a response to WP:OR comment

Regardless of whichever thread your response was , considering all the contradictions you showed so far, I think you need to Improve and have an objective mindset to edit here , I don't think there is any policy to support this idea :

What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers

Hakikatco (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

how is that I send to chatgpt a prompt like "give me an illustration describing this page" an "original research"?

As has been explained to you multiple times, it’s because it’s not based on any reliable secondary sources nor is it derived from a primary-source depiction of a topic (ex. a real-life photo) - you yourself are literally creating a prompt and delivering it to an AI, which creates the image itself, thereby making it original content. Again, this has been explained to you multiple times throughout this thread - considering you still fail to understand this, I sincerely believe you lack the competence required to constructively edit Wikipedia. The Kip 05:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well thats not true, I was told that its self-evident that AI generated images should not be used and or I was given WP:OR with no explanation like you did now .

Based on the Wiki policy  :

Because of copyright laws in several countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

Does my AI generated image illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments? No, it does illustrate a published text Hakikatco (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

However to be on the safe side I think we can stop using AI gen images, as I mentioned in the other thread Hakikatco (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

For God's sake, when policy says Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, it means going out and taking your own picture of a mountain or something -- not your fantasy, or some bot's fantasy, of what something or someone looked like. EEng 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinite block needed (of Hakikatco). I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks for even a moment that an AI-generated image has any place in an article ever (except, perhaps, in an article on the subject of AI-generated images) has a severe CIR problem. Next we'll be hearing that "to be on the safe side" we shouldn't use text written by monkeys at typewriters, even if there's no policy discouraging that. EEng 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A Repeated Statement

It has always been one of the rules of DRN, which is a content forum, that we do not mediate any dispute that is also pending at another noticeboard, including in any conduct forum such as WP:ANI. A request for dispute resolution about Aisha at DRN has been closed because this dispute, which includes complaints about the editing of Aisha, is also pending here. Reporting the same dispute at multiple noticeboards is known as forum shopping and has always been disapproved of in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for the notification. But just to clarify, it was @Hakikatco who filed the DRN case [169], and they didn't even list and notify the two other editors who also had taken part in the discussion at Talk:Aisha: [170], namely @Anachronist and @Toddy1. If I'm not mistaken, this one was closed for the same reason, right? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have changed this comment to Level 3 so that it does not appear to be addressed to you. And, yes, their statement that the previous DRN was prematurely archived was wrong. It was archived after it was closed due to failure to notify. I have not tried to mediate or assess this dispute, and am not at this time commenting on who is at fault, and am not commenting at this time on whether there are competence issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

One more time, for anyone. Do not forum shop by filing reports about the same dispute at two or more noticeboard at almost the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A problem is that sometimes users file things that mean something to them, but mean nothing to readers. Take this DR case filed by Hakikatco at 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC). It was closed because Hakikatco failed to notify the other editor. Hakikatco's complaint says: my content was deleted due to invalid reasons, the user Kaalakaa seems to manipulate WP policies to remove my content, and points us at Talk:Aisha#Marriage age of Aisha.

If you read that section of Talk:Aisha, you can see that Hakikatco appears have misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL which talks about the need for multiple high quality sources - see Hakikatco's comment of 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC). I thought it was tendentious editing by Hakikatco, but if we are charitable, it might have been a competence with the English-language issue.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Well I notified @Kaalakaa who started deleting my content, sorry I didnt notify everyone of you

Maybe I misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL>, but too many of you were attacking so I got busy. Anyway, multiple high quality sources agreed with this theory including Islamicity.org https://www.islamicity.org/3379/at-what-age-did-aisha-marry-the-prophet-muhammad-slw/ , many Islamic and non Islamic book stores are selling this book of Haylamaz https://wardahbooks.com/products/aishawifecompanionscholar

https://www.rjjulia.com/book/9781597842662

Also the fact that alternate age theories were listed 1300 years ago by Tabari ( He stated she was 12 or 13) and other well known Islamic scholars, makes this theory on her age not alone. Hakikatco (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco: So, an apologetic article from a religious site, Islamicity, is what you consider as "multiple high-quality sources." And because "many Islamic and non-Islamic bookstores" sell the author's book, this means it has met WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Not only did you completely ignore the lengthy explanations from multiple editors regarding WP:IIS, which is one of the criteria for WP:SOURCE, but your understanding of WP:EXCEPTIONAL is also completely wrong. Not to mention the various issues regarding you above. Yeah, this appears to be a clear-cut WP:CIR & WP:IDHT case. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article Hakikatco (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

and no , i admitted i misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL,

On the other side According to Muslim community Islamicity is high quality website and active for 29 years, and many bookstores publishing the article supporting this theory shows the endorsement of it Hakikatco (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Muslim community Islamicity is high quality website and active for 29 years

Oh, I see. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

you can mock whatever you want but this is the fact Hakikatco (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That kind of "fact" doesn't matter here. What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Which policy is that? I think secular sources talking about religios topics can be very biased as well .

Besides that I want to also answer your question here:

I think you are confusing Vested interest concept in WP:IIS (which is not even a Wiki policy but an essay) If I have an interest in a topic and I am making worldly gains by publishing a content about that topic then I am not an independent source , this can be personal gain, financial or political per WP:IIS.

But if I have an interest in a cause and I am sacrificing my money, time and personal life (and for some people this is jail time or even death ) for that cause, this is considered sacrifice which is exactly the opposite of vested interest .

Yes Tarihce-i Hayat (The biopraphy of Said Nursi ) was written by his fans and followers and published in 1958 . If you search in Amazon you can see there are many publishers who published the same book and in many of them the author doesnt exist or not Said Nursi (https://a.co/d/506LeKr , https://a.co/d/506LeKr) . Bediuzzaman didnt want to have his biography created but after his students insisted for so long and finally he said if you talk about the Risale i Nur more than me I would accept you write my biography

In the case Said Nursi and Risale-i Nur, having an interest in him meant torture and jail time in Turkey until 1958 .

His fans like Zubeyir Gunduzalp, Tahiri Mutlu, Hafiz Ali, Mustafa Sungur every one of them were jailed because of their interest in Risale-i Nur

Said Nursi himself was either in jail or in exile from 1926 until 1952 (After the first democratic election he was acquitted from all charges ) .

So none of the fans, students of Said Nursi gained anything worldly by supporting him or writing Tarihce-i Hayat, aka none of them had a vested interest in writing such a book.

I am fine using other sources than Tarihce-i Hayat but wanted to understand the reasoning behind your edits Hakikatco (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Which policy is that? ... you are confusing Vested interest concept in WP:IIS(which is not even a Wiki policy but an essay)

WP:SOURCE policy states: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And that "independent" word is linked to WP:IS. How many times do I need to tell you this? As for your argument:

But if I have an interest in a cause and I am sacrificing my money, time and personal life (and for some people this is jail time or even death ) for that cause, this is considered sacrifice ...

... and a conflict of interest. Parents also sacrifice their money, time, and personal life for their children, but WP:IIS says they are not independent sources.

I think secular sources talking about religios topics can be very biased as well .

See WP:YESBIAS. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What I was saying the criteria to be non-independent per WP:IIS is to have a vested interest , if you are claiming that a vested interest exists for the fans of Nursi to write Tarihce i Hayat, whats it

And considering WP:IIS is not even a Wikipedia policy who are you tell me I am not following rules, does Wikipedia allow more tenured users to oppress other ideas Hakikatco (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:YESBIAS is not a WIki policy either

What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers.)

. Secular sources dictating what religious concepts are on behalf of religious sources , what a great idea , you are super competent Hakikatco (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've had enough of this. I'll support the block. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I also support the block. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 19:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The serious proposal that a bookstore selling a book is somehow "endorsing" the book, and that Wikipedia should care about such an endorsement, is so ludicrous that it raises serious WP:CIR concerns. CodeTalker (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Cyxfr pretending to be an admin

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

it's a visual edit, so there's a specific button to add invisible comments

so i don't think any socking or html experience is necessary for that part cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is that button, by the way? I don’t know how to add hidden comments in VE. Zanahary (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Insert > More > Invisible comment Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

@Serial Number 54129: I mean, all right, I guess. Under your original account (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice! 4 points. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

Brilliant! :D ——Serial Number 54129 14:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting the fact they even attempted this stunt at all represents a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's advanced user rights work. "Moderators" or administrators actually don't have any extra power to enforce their preferred version of articles at all, much less threaten to "ban" users over it, as stipulated by WP:INVOLVED. That it was clearly done only to try to gain extra leverage in their topic area is quite concerning indeed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Bandwagon98

Bandwagon98 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
The account is 2 years old with over 10k edits. They are primarily editing in India related articles, especially film articles. Majority of edits on movie reviews are completely unsourced OR or poorly cited. They have recieved multiple warnings down the years and still they refuse to provide references. Their talk page is covered with warnings and personalised helpful links to refrain from such OR edits, but they refuse to engage in discussions or reply. Recent edits might not warrant a block, but a topic ban on adding movie reviews and/or tban on film related articles can be done for this editing behavior. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as i can see, they have made precisely one edit to Usertalk space (their own talk page, replying to someone who questioned what they did) and absolutely none to Talk space; they have been blocked once for DE, though seem not to have acknowledged it; as The Herald says, their talk page is littered with warnings of various levels. Whether it's inability to communicate or lack of desire to do so, they need to be held accountable (as are we all), so should perhaps be blocked from Article space till they accept the need for communication. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. They do have some productive edits, but the persistent addition of uncited original research is definitely a dealbreaker and must be dealt with till they establish a means of communication. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block until they make a sincere commitment to collaborate and communicate regarding the concerns the community has with their edits.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Qaqaamba

Hi admins, Qaqaamba has violated WP:3RR and is being disruptive. In this edit, I added citation needed templates to the infobox, removed South Africa as the genre's country of origin, and removed the statement about Freshlyground popularizing the Afro fusion music genre. I have addressed the concerns I have with the article on the article's talk page. Qaqaamba has failed to provide reliable sources to support the claim that Afro fusion was pioneered by Freshlyground, and has not provided a single source that states that the genre originated in South Africa. He reverted my edits to the page in this edit. Once I got a notification that he reverted my edit, I reverted his edit. He went ahead and reverted my edit once more. In addition to this, he left a warning note on my talk page. I undid his edit and told him that I would report him if he leaves this particular note on my talk page again. He reverted the edit I made my talk page; the warning message is still on my talk page.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should just give Versace1608 and Qaqaamba boxing gloves so they can sought out their problems. Honestly, I think y'all deserve some time of the encyclopedia to refresh your minds because this is too much now. Is this the third ANI discussion, plus countless talk page discussions and AfD? Come on now. dxneo (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Touching grass from time to time, is definitely necessary at times. Hahahaha, it's's not funny at all, mate. I'm absolutely terrible at fighting and I don't see it as a pleasant or meaningful activity whatsoever. Facepalm Qaqaamba (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Automated tools such as RedWarn ought not be used for reverting good-faith additions, particularly not with a 'vandalism' edit summary. However you probably shouldn't have used rollback either. Local Variable (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Local Variable You're correct. I intended to use RedWarn for disruptive editing ( disruptive deletions/additions) rather than vandalism. Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment, my logic failed me. I also reported to AIV for vandalism (first time using this function) instead of disruptive editing which I now can't undo. I acknowledge that was incorrect and an embarassing blunder to say the least Facepalm Qaqaamba (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that when you're getting close to entering into an editing dispute, use manual undo and steer clear of the tools (whatever rationale they may offer). Automated tools make it too easy to lose your judgement. Also, they tend to add user warning templates which are silly in some circumstances: see WP:DTTR. Local Variable (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not, as I find it greatly diminishes the editing experience as well as the purpose/ of building the encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your advice, it's valued. Qaqaamba (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but undoing deliberate disruptive edits doesn't necessarily violate the Wikipedia policy on reverting edits (WP:3RR), especially in the case of an article under AfD where consensus hasn't been established. Furthermore, removing information in such a situation could disrupt the article and affect potential decisions. If I recall correctly, it was twice, not three times (Special:Diff/1221212461, Special:Diff/1221213051). Additionally, Versace1608 is literally repeatedly, WP:HARASS ing and WP:FOLLOWINGing [171],Talk:Afro-soul furthermore, has previously violated Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks (WP:PA) toward me., because I once corrected an edit on a page Versace 1608 created and turned out to be right [172], proceeding that Versace 1608 nominated an article I created for AfD [173] and now that it appears it is not getting deleted Versace1608 is unhappy. Out of all the editors who have contributed to the article, this individual is the sole individual consistently emphasizing the need for sources, despite the presence of 90+ (mixed) WP:RS as per comments at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro fusion) Additionally there is another thread releated to Versace1608 here for the reasons above, still open Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment & Disruptive editing of User: Versace1608 -Topic /article and interaction ban proposal, Versace1608 additionally posseses a prior history of being blocked for violating the Wikipedia policy on disruptive editing (WP:DE).

1. [174]

Qaqaamba (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue with that line of thought is that unless it is blatant vandalism, it's very hard to define "deliberate disruptive edits" in a way that can't be challenged. Which is why you should always think twice before going past 3RR and risking a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds understood, thank you. "Deliberate" in the context , per detailed above. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, I didn't violate 3RR. Generally speaking, are there exceptions to the three-revert rule when reverting disruptive edits (disruptive deletions/ disruptive additions) or in this case not making use of WP:MNA and the references list : Afro fusion#References (Afro fusion)? Furthermore nominating articles for AfD with the rationale that "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail," it seems to violate WP:PA as the topic has indeed been discussed in reliable/ secondary sources, and there are reliable sources that discuss the genre in detail or otherwise. Surely, this information could have been verified before making the nomination. Qaqaamba (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh Well, I tried. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qaqaamba If the edit you are reverting is not blatant vandalism - if it is simply that an editor is being stubborn and refusing to listen to consensus, or that information is unsourced, or anything else - then 3RR applies. Have a look at WP:NOTVANDAL, it's very precise in exactly what vandalism is not and will help you to avoid edit wars. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime understood, thank you. What are the usual procedures for an editor who is being stubborn and refusing to listen to community/ consensus, information that is sourced or anything else by dint of "disruptive deletions/ disruptive additions"? Qaqaamba (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Uncivility, profanity and name calling by user:SpacedFarmer

User:SpacedFarmer looks to have taken offence to having their edits reverted and subsequently being outvoted on Talk:Macau Grand Prix#Split/merge into other articles, thus they have taken to uncivility including name calling to several editors and a Youtube personality, using profanities of varying strength. User:Rpo.castro asked them to consider their tone after being a recipient of foul words, only to have needless abuse in return. After their latest comment on that talk page with a strong word and a possibly libellous comment, I asked the user on their talk page to reconsider their tone, only to have a reply including more name calling to the Youtuber.

I don't want to see this behaviour, profanity, nor unconstructive comments on Wikipedia. It isn't even discussion related on the whole. Am I expected to tolerate it? Rally Wonk (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: Please don't forget to put a notice on their talkpage (see near the top of this page for instructions). Polygnotus (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rally Wonk (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Also please read WP:DIFF and post some links here. It makes life easier when there are some diffs people can look at. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rally Wonk (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk is being pretty sensitive here.

• Some of the criticism includes that I pointed out to one user being told that in his oppose statement, it is unreadable to most people as he stuffed over 1000 words into a paragraph. I told him how am I going to read that?
• When I get told to go fishing by Rpo.castro, I pointed out the expenses of it, not to mention that you cannot just go out into a lake and just fish as you need a license and a membership to a lake, in my country at least.
• This YouTuber has well over 100k subs by stealing contents from Wikipedia like virtually all motorsport YouTubers (I first came across him back in 2018 when he had less than 1000 subs and was still the same) and Rally Wonk expects me to treat him with kid gloves. Why is calling an influencer a parasite an insult when they leech off the public for a living.
  • Why he does get called out? He steals content from this site and pass it off as his own. Those who work hard here like us, don't get a credit. Because of this, I think this criticism is valid. At Discord, we (the community) throw in more offensive slurs when describing him. This is unless Rally Wonk is that influencer and can't face his own reality.
  • For those who steal from Wikipedia, just don't expect nice things to be given to you with the exception of white knights and Captain Save a Hoes that plaque the editorialised comments sections - this should be a repercussion for stealing contents from Wikipedia.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The points you have are separate to the style in which you make them which is being discussed here. If it's acceptable on Discord, good for Discord, but this isn't Discord, please leave it on there. Some users here, including me, enjoy and expect Wikipedia without that tone. Further, some people, including me, come here to escape that tone. Maybe you think you're being jovial and maybe expect everybody else is feeling the same way, but sometimes it's received as abuse and agitation. If I'm being sensitive, OK, but there is a page written on incivility that says this is not acceptable here. In fact I believe it's pretty selfish if you can't respect that. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My take is that some of what each of you is saying is valid. SpacedFarmer, some of the tone of your comments, particularly the "how the fuck am I supposed to read this?" and other aggressive use of a similar language, is definitely an issue and needs to change.

And as for losing your mind over the "parasite youtubers", such comments probably don't constitute a violation of policy (or at least not a particularly egregious one) but it is also at best a pointless distraction. Wikipedia's content is open license for a reason (many reasons, actually), and you're not going to find many here who are put out by other content producers "stealing" the content--they are permitted by the principles of this project to use our content verbatim, if they like. It's more ideal, in an empirical honesty sort of way, if they attribute to us, but it's outside the scope of this project's rules and oversight to control their behaviour. If you are going to have problems with people (and content mills especially) recycling your contributions for their own uses, you may want to consider contributing your knowledge elsewhere: once you add it to an article on this project, you lose effectively all control over it, and you typically will never get credit for your hard work, beyond your occasional recognition on-Project by your editorial peers. In fact, it is extremely rare that any editor's contributions are recognized beyond the four corners of out process pages.

On the other hand, Rally Wonk, some of the issues you have raised here are tempests in a teapot, or perfectly reasonable and in-proportion responses to what appear to be attempts at witticism at SpacedFarmer's expense. SF's response to the fishing comment, for example, was pretty tame and reasonable; I actually find the original "take up fishing" comment itself to have been slightly more snarky and on the bubble of passive aggressive--if only just barely. This thread is probably just barely worthwhile to draw SF's attention towards their comments getting a little heated, before that situation gets worse, but I don't see as there's an argument for community action here. Not even a slap on the wrist. More like the textual feedback equivalent of using your hands to make the universal "just a bit quieter, please!" motion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A warning may be in order. SpacedFarmer has called other editors' comments unreadable and called their contributions so terrible (which is, I think, the real problem of the 'YouTube parasite' comment—I'm less concerned about what SpacedFarmer says about YouTubers and more troubled by the way that comment was a circuitous dig at another editor's contributions to an article, saying the article isn't 'good enough' to 'parasitize').

Rpo.castro's snark also seemed out of pocket, what with the fishing comment amounting to an indirect suggestion to leave the project (what with the whole 'dedicate your time to other activities' line). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Endy Angello

Endy Angello (talk · contribs) is continuing to post weird diatribes at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity that display a gross lack of understanding of the topic area, as well as how to behave in a civil manner on Wikipedia. I'm having a hard time continuing to tolerate this high of an amount of disruptive comments.

As I'm involved, can another admin please review it and issue some warnings and/or blocks? Cc @Doug Weller who posted there already. TIA. --Joy (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope the admins will take a look how he and his friends' personal opinion want to exclude Croatia from that topic. On every question that he doesn't like he didn't answer to avoid being wrong. On every document and source that I posted, he also avoid answering. He interprets things as he wants and how it benefits his personal opinion. I wanted to include both countries, Croatia and Serbia because it's the only proper way based on official historical documents, and he just wants Serbia to be included. Endy Angello (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not for settling content disputes, but for behavior. Nobody here is going to settle your dispute for you about how Tesla's nationality and ethnicity should be described.

You have been extremely contentious in that discussion, assuming bad faith, and generally acting in an uncollegial manner. My question would be if a warning would suffice to get you having a productive discussion with people rather than at them, or if a topic ban of nationality/ethnicity would be more appropriate. That you've continued the violations of WP:AGF in this discussion suggests that the latter may be required; there's literally an accusation of bad faith in every single sentence you posted in your response. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Page blocks. I have page-blocked Endy Angello indefinitely from Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity for persistent bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith. They have not been editing Nicola Tesla, but I have page-blocked them from that also, since having access to the article but not the talkpage would be quite paradoxical. Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC).
• Good partial block. But I have a throwaway question that will probably not be answered. Why did Endy Angello establish an account in December 2015 and then lurk until April 2024? (They have not edited any other-language Wikipedias in that time.) Were they waiting for the configuration of the outer planets, or were they relying on one of Tesla's more esoteric inventions to know when to start quarreling? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I often wonder about that. I see quite a few, some must be sleeper socks. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  In retrospect, maybe the escalation of tone from [175] to [176] should have sufficed for me to not try to reason with that and instead just warn them not to post weird nonsense under the authority of WP:ARBMAC. It's just that I didn't like to intimidate an apparent newbie, and it's too easy for such a reaction to this arguably subtle abuse to be misinterpreted as administrative overreach. If I had noticed that the account was 9 years old (!), maybe I would have acted differently. At the same time, I'm not sure, it still seems like we need to apply WP:AGF at least once. Maybe [177] could have been the cutoff point, but by that point I thought I was already WP:INVOLVED. --Joy (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you have been acting in good faith. You are experienced enough to know where this user's behavior will lead and I think you haven't done anything to advise the user. Not to defend his behavior, but you (and some others) have been advocating for bans for ages on that talk page. Much milder users got banned. Good faith would be to advise the user , if he doesn't correct his behavior then apply appropriate measures. Again this is not in defend of his behavior, but I noticed a pattern of bad faith from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.18.60.36 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No bad faith has been shown here, but plenty of incompetence. I'll leave you to work out on whose part. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's such a bad take, I don't even know where to start. --Joy (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

another editor's conduct: attitude, tone, and lying

I'm not sure if this is the best, or even appropriate venue, but I really want to get perspective on another editor's activity. Please forgive my verbosity.

On 3 March 2024 at 18:21 UTC, I removed everything unsourced from the article Eve Harlow, and tried to rebuild it as best I could from the extant sources plus a few more. Part of that edit was removing unverified nationality, which I also performed by changing Category:Canadian film actresses and Category:Canadian television actresses to Category:film actresses and Category:television actresses. 54 days later, on 26 April 2024, Bearcat (talk · contribs) began making a lot of edits to the article, which we discussed on its talk page, but it's not content that I want to ask about here (I've already requested a third opinion). I'm more concerned with Bearcat's tack during this process. Mostly they seem to eschew 'discussion' and are instead focusing on 'accusing' and 'demanding'.

On 26 April 2024 at 22:02 UTC, they opened discussions with saying: they would accept no explanation for my categorization choices back in March, the categorizations I chose were wholly unacceptable, I needed to suck it up and move on, and that There is absolutely no acceptable argument to the contrary, and I will brook no clapback on that. Get her out of the container categories, and into an appropriate national subcategory, immediately. Mind you, I'd not even offered my explanation of WP:V and WP:CATV for removing the biography from nationality categories, but here I was being ordered around in a manner I've rarely even seen on the project, much less directed at myself. Such language and tone continues throughout the talk page and can be read there; I don't need to quote it here.

While preparing my 3O post today, I checked Bearcat's "Wikipedia talk:" contributions to make sure they hadn't already been requesting anything similar, and instead found this 26 April 2024, 21:52 (UTC) post at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. There I am accused of (a) basically vetoing any source whatsoever that describes [Harlow] as 'Canadian', which I haven't done; (b) forcibly reverting anybody who tries to diffuse her out of Category:Film actresses or Category:Television actresses, which I haven't done; and revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article that don't fit [my] agenda, which I suppose has merit for values of "my agenda" that equal "Wikipedia:Verifiability", each time duly explained.

Lastly, while just-now checking all the links and whatnot I'm using here, I found that the article Lorena Vindel has been in category:film actresses since 16 January 2020 at 00:11 UTC. When Bearcat edited that article 340 days later, they not only didn't remove that categorization, but also didn't subject Nick Number (talk · contribs) to similar diatribic talk-page demands. It seems I'm special in this regard.

I think this is only the second time I've seen myself blatantly lied about on enwp, and one of a handful of times I've been literally ordered to make edits IAW another editor's whims. Again, the actual articular content about which Bearcat and I are discussing has been subjected to a third-opinion request, and not the subject of this specific post. Here I'm just concerned about another editor's tone and attitude towards me, and their lies about me on other pages. Lastly, my apologies if this should be asked elsewhere; I've just previously had thoughtful and expert assistance here with other sticky situations (also, WP:DR says that "Issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard"). Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the underlying content dispute, I am having difficulty imagining a scenario in which it would be appropriate for one editor to make those demands of another editor. I will brook no clapback on that. Get her out of the container categories, and into an appropriate national subcategory, immediately. That excerpt is especially problematic. Unless I've missed some major policy changes, nobody around here wields that kind of authority. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I find this hard to justify. If the awards are worth including here, then why not use the award body's own site to source the simple fact that these awards were awarded. Yes, this is primary sourcing, but it's also an objective statement, not the sort of subjectivity for which we require secondary sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Because an award has to be sourceable to media coverage in order to become notable enough to be mentioned at all. "The awards are worth including here" is a thing that requires media coverage to even establish in the first place — an award has to be established as notable in order to become "worth including here", and an award has to have media coverage about it in order to become established as notable. So an award has to have media sourcing because that's how you establish that the award is notable enough to be mentioned at all. An award that doesn't have media coverage isn't a notable award at all, and cannot make its winners notable for winning it — so the sourcing has to be media coverage, because you have to show that the award has media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article at all.

Additionally, I was correct that if a person wins an award, you do not need a second source to verify that she was nominated for it in the first place — a person cannot win an award that she wasn't nominated for, so the fact that she won it already covers off the fact that she got nominated for it without needing a separate source for the original nomination. And if a person was nominated for an award but didn't win it, you do not need a second source to verify who the ultimate winner was, because the fact that there's a source for a nomination, but not for a win, already covers off the fact that she didn't win it. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:N applies to the topics of articles, it's not a requirement for every aspect within them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

And a subject has to have a notability claim, such as wins of or nominations for noteworthy awards, in order to be notable. So an award can only be a person's notability claim if that award is itself notable in its own right, and cannot be a person's notability claim if it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I had to double-check that Bearcat is still an administrator. What gives? Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

and/or willing to back me up on an WP:AFD discussion if the sourcing can't be improved. (link) seriously?? & looking at the edit history of the Eve Harlow article, i'm not seeing any forcibly reverting or revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article that don't fit their agenda by Fourthords. in fact, i see Bearcat reverting Fourthords with the edit summary "nope". the only revert by Fourthords is this one, which is clearly not "forcible" or based on an "agenda". additionally, as Fourthords points out at Talk:Eve Harlow, Bearcat added the container template to Category:Television actresses half an hour before making their post on the article's talk page. what's going on here? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not the placement of a template that causes the category to become "containerized" — the fact that the category was already containerized causes the placement of the template, not vice versa. So that's not me "making" a non-containerized category containerized by "fiat" — the category was already containerized a long time ago (as witness the fact that there's nobody else in it but her), and the template was just missing from it. It's not containerized "because" I added a template — I added a missing template because it was already containerized by other people. The template is the result of the category being containerized, not the cause of it, and doesn't make the category anything different than it already was, so absolutely nothing about that constitutes me "imposing" anything that wasn't already true.

And no, just trying to pull her completely out of the entire tree is not an alternative solution either: if she's been an actress in film, then she must be found somewhere under Category:Film actresses, and if she's been an actress in television then she must be found somewhere under Category:Television actresses, and the only legitimate question for discussion is what specific national subcategories of those parents she does or doesn't belong in. Pulling people entirely out of category trees that they do belong in is just not a valid alternative to doing what it takes to figure out her correct nationality, and I have not seen any credible explanation of why the sources that explicitly call her a Canadian-Israeli actress are somehow inadequate for categorizing her as either Canadian or Israeli. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That message at CWNBD, as well as the other discussion it references, with a similar tone, sure look like beyond-the-pale canvassing. Rather than WP:APPNOTE it's a laundry list of exaggerated arguments about Things We Must Not Let Happen. Literally, ask if anybody's willing to ... back me up on an WP:AFD discussion could be a screenshot in the Wikijargon dictionary next to "canvassing". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside everything else, that message expressly states an intention to canvass the discussion. I'm a little surprised to see that coming from an administrator. Cjhard (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Asking for outside input into a one-on-one argument is not canvassing. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not if it's expressed in a neutral way, it's not. Would you describe your message at CWNBD as neutral? Cjhard (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

For one thing, I will note that you previously did exactly the same thing at Teryl Rothery a couple of years ago: you decontainerized her out of "Canadian X actress" categories and into generic undifferentiated parent categories, and you did repeatedly revert-war anybody who added any source that described her as "Canadian". I tried a couple of times to add sources that explicitly established her as Canadian, which you reverted on the grounds that they weren't good enough for your standards without offering any explanation whatsoever of what was inadequate about them — and that didn't stop until somebody else stepped in a couple of weeks later. So no, I did not mischaracterize your tactics at all, because I distinctly remember what you did at Teryl Rothery a few years back, which was exactly what I described.

Did I perhaps get a bit angrier here than might have been called for? Sure, I'll cop to that, I tend to be pretty direct and blunt in my writing tone rather than beating around the bush. But I said nothing wrong about how referencing works, and I said nothing wrong about how categorization works, and I said nothing wrong about past editing behaviour of yours that I've seen. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Being right is not enough, not only because it's a poor excuse for uncivil conduct, but it's not relevant here because we aren't arguing about content. People are sometimes wrong - that includes me and you. When it's me that's wrong, I wouldn't want someone pointing out my mistakes this way, and I'm sure you'd agree for yourself. When someone is wrong, you don't start the conversation with them by telling them to suck it up and move on and make demands that they immediately do what you want. This is not merely being blunt. Being right also does not excuse you asking an audience to back me up, because it is practically the definition of canvassing, or that Fourthords is revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article, which was not true. Calling out a couple of reverts from Fourthords in 2020 does not excuse your behavior. You are not assuming good faith, you are doing the exact opposite when you assert that Fourthords has an agenda. This is not the behavior I'd like to see from anyone, let alone an administrator. A simple apology and an admission that you should have gone about this differently would go a long way and it doesn't cost you anything. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This entire thing started because I simply added a couple of maintenance tags to the article for the non-ideal sourcing and the non-ideal categories. Then Fourthords asked me what the problem was, and I politely and civilly explained it, only to then have Fourthords start clapping back at me about how I was wrong about everything and trying to revert me on the templates. Then I added proper reliable source referencing for the award statements, and was partially reverted on that as well. Then they tried to tell me that I should be tagging the article for notability issues, not referencing issues, even though she has a nomination for a solid NACTOR-passing award, meaning that her basic notability is not in question — and they insisted that there isn't adequate sourcing for any national subcategory at all without providing any explanation of what's actually inadequate about any of the sources out there that explicitly describe her as Israeli/Canadian.

And again, that's exactly what happened the last time Fourthords and I crossed paths on an article about a Canadian actress whose nationality they had challenged as improperly sourced: I added a solid source to move Teryl Rothery back to the Canadian categories, but Fourthords still reverted it as "not good enough" without giving any explanation of what wasn't good enough about it — so, especially since they were already reverting me on simple maintenance tags as it is, what guarantee do I have that they won't just revert me on any new sources I try to add to the article too?

So I can't just fix the sourcing issues myself if I have no idea what they're going to accept as good enough to not revert me on, but I can't just walk away and leave the article untagged for the sourcing or categorization issues either, because the sourcing and the container categories both need improvement. She has a valid notability claim, but the article isn't adequately referenced or categorized in its current form either and needs some improvement, and it is not my responsibility to just walk away and leave a page like that untagged.

I already acknowledged that maybe I got angrier than I should have. But Fourthords isn't asking for me to apologize for getting a little hot under the collar, they're asking for me to get severely reprimanded for even tagging the article for the referencing and category problems in the first place. I didn't get angry until after I was provoked by them reverting me on the templates and trying to tell me I was wrong to have tagged the article for any maintenance issues at all. Literally all I did was add a couple of completely justified maintenance tags to an article, but then I almost immediately had to fend off an attempt at having my head ripped off for it — certainly I could have reacted more calmly than I did, but it's not as though my reaction lacked any rational basis in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Four paragraphs without a single diff don't make a positive impression. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am explicitly not re-addressing our content-based discussion, as it already has a home. If you want to copy these new claims, sources, and mischaracterizations there (or if you'd prefer me to do so), we can continue speaking on them. they're asking for me to get severely reprimanded Again, you're lying about what I've said and done. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, Take a tip from someone who's made lots of mistakes in her time - The easiest way out of this is just to apologise and not make excuses for yourself. You'll feel a lot better for it, and you'll be able to move on. Deb (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not delving into nor relitigating a years-old discussion. Are you justifying your lies at that Canadian talk-page by now saying you expected me to eventually do them? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Bearcat has got a fair bit of bad faith, incivility, ownership, canvassing and behavoiral concerns to justify. I note they have not yet been able to do so.

This whole gamut of belligerence would be eyebrow raising in any editor. For an admin: per Mackensen, "What gives?" ——Serial Number 54129 12:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate so many other editors (administrators?) reacting as similarly as I did to that tone and attitude; that's very reassuring. If Bearcat returns to our our content discussion, are there any particular tactics/procedures I should employ if I encounter more of the same? How should I move forward properly and safely?

What weighs even heavier on my mind, though, is that several comments above suggest Bearcat themselves is an administrator. How should that color my expectations or options going forward? Was my request of the third opinion process moot? I mean, regardless of any strength of my arguments and the supporting policies, should I even be risking my editing privileges in this manner? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:INVOLVED. If Bearcat would use their admin tools on you or that article (e.g. blocking you, protecting the article in the version they prefer, ...), they would loose their "rank" of administrator and the action would normally be overturned. So no, that Bearcat is an administrator should have no importance in the discussion nor should it create any risk for your editing privileges. Fram (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, that Bearcat is an administrator should mean that they should have never got anywhere near such poor levels of conduct, which is why I advise them to make an immediate, unreserved, and sincere apology. Otherwise, their road is dark and well-trodden. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bearcat has continued to edit in the meantime, and has not really addressed any of the behavioral concerns (which are particularly pressing for an admin) raised here. can we find some resolution for this? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Propose some action like you would do against a non-admin. Trout, block, topic ban, interaction ban, whatever. They shouldn't get some special protection because they are an admin, but if this isn't part of a pattern, they shouldn't yet get sent to ArbCom to get desysopped either. Their complete lack of comments on the actual grounds for this ANI discussion (their conduct) is seriously disappointing though, and as we have no indication that something like this won't continue, we should prevent it by some admin action. Fram (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violations after several warnings

Norfolkbigfish's blatant and persistent plagiarims was detected by more than one editors at least two years ago ([178], [179]). During a recent FAC of crusading movement, I detected new cases of plagiarism, and opposed the article's promotion. In response, Norfolkbigish took me to ANI. (Several of the cases of plagiarism, were also detected by an other reviewer ([180])) I initiated a GAR for plagiarism and several other issues, and still detected further cases of plagiarism. I closed the GAR review, and Norfolkbigfish again took me to ANI. During the process, Star Mississippi proposed a block of Norfolkbigfish "for on going copyright issues which remain an issue despite their ongoing promises", this proposal was supported by Serial Number 54129, but the process was closed without any formal decision. Norfolkbigfish have promised several time that they will be working to clean the article of plagiarism. For instance, they stated at 16:40 on April 10th that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." On 25 April, Norfolkbigfish suggested that the article should still be listed, stating that "all issues identified have been addressed" ([181]). On 26 April, I mentioned that Norfolkbigfish obviously does not take copyright violation seriosly ([182]), and AirshipJungleman29 mentioned that they are "increasingly concerned about" Norfolkbigfish's "perception of the issue" ([183]). Today, I continued the review of the article and still detected several new cases of plagiarism. I think Norfolkbigfish is not here to build an encyclopedia as they are either unable to or do not want to clean the article of copyvio. Persistent and blatant plagiarism indicates "General pattern of disruptive behavior", and Norfolkbigfish's struggle for a GA badge ([184]) suggests that they want "to gain as many awards as possible". Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion that there is new plagiarism is untrue, as @Bosoka is aware I am working through the article to clear historic close paraphrasing. This is largely fragmentary now, and I will remove all and every instance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• They are newly detected cases of plagiarism, although you have allegedly been cleaning the article for three weeks, and wanted to close its GAR without delisting it. I am more and more convinced that you are unable to understand that your plagiasism is an extremly serious issue. Whenever I started to review a new section in the article during the last one and a half months, I detected new cases of plagiarism in each section. And I have not finished the review yet. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well @Borsoka, these have been resolved now you have raised them, please do continue your review and we can get this article cleaned to your satisfaction. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• You have been warned by multiple editors several times since early 2020. You have promised to clean the article several times during the last month, but the article still contains plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please point it out and it will be resolved. What remains is fragmentary as far as I am aware. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting I've seen this. On wiki time is limited, but @Borsoka's comment that I recommended a block then is true, and I see nothing from a read here that makes me think the situation has changed. Star Mississippi 01:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I shared Borsoka's concerns regarding historic plagiarism and I share their continuing concerns re. current close paraphrasing. NBF seems to be—as he seems to have been for some time—under the impression that if he can reorder some words each time an issue is raised, then that's OK. Of course, it is not. It does nothing to address potential Cv violations as yet undiscovered or to allay community concerns as to their ability to identify and avoid in in future. There may by now be a serious blind spot, and one serious enough to CIR.

Perusing the pages linked to provides both plenty of evidence supporting NBF's close paraphrasing and also their intransigence at resolving it. I would like to suggest that this discussion is not derailed by becoming yet another endless back and forth between these two editors as so easily seems to happen. Bosoka has summarised the case well, while it seems unlikely that NBF has anything much new left to say. ——Serial Number 54129 11:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No intransigence here @Serial Number 54129, I am keen to resolve all and every issue. As such I am working through the article when time allows resourcing and rewriting as I go. No new infringements have been added, or will be, and if you or any other editor wishes to look at the article and raise specific concerns I would welcome it and use it as an opportunity to improve the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is what you have stated several times during the last three weeks, but you have not proved that you want to or able to fix the problem. For instance, at 16:40 on 10 April you stated that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." Nine days later, at 15:55 you again stated that "I happily admit my mistakes and am/was working towards rectifying them." Three weeks ago I happily offered you a chance to clean the article ([185]), but you missed the opportunity. Instead of cleaning the article, you made minor edits for weeks, although I reminded you that copyright violation is a serious issue, and this should be solved first of all ([186], [187]). Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support permanent block and/or ban It’s been four years, there have been multiple warnings, and the message still hasn’t been received. It’s time to stop with the diplomacy and break out the artillery. Editors like this end up being more trouble then they’re worth, and it’s abundantly clear that nothing on NBF’s end is going to change. We need to block (or ban) the editor permanently. 2600:1011:B194:C0D1:24DC:6528:9265:C0AD (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in such things and don't want to cause more grief for anyone, truly, but permanent block and/or ban feels a little harsh especially, as I understand it, the plagiarism allegations concern facts. I don't want to down play anyone's concerns but are there other possible sanctions short of permanent blocks? Thank you. Britfilm (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish's persistent and blatant plagiarism is a legal risk for our community. Even his latest remarks suggest that the very concept of copyright violation is totally alien to them ([188], [189], [190], [191], [192]). My experiences during the last 2+ years suggest me that many editors must be ready to permanently review Norfolkbigfish's edits to avoid further cases of copyvio if Norfolkbigfish continues to edit WP. Sorry, I would save this precious time for tasks adding value to our project. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  These are examples of feedback being given and acted on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Feedback? The denial of blatant and par excellence copyviolation? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Everything you suggested was actioned, the last item with consensus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef block: Just about every single plagiarism allegation there's ever been on Wikipedia concerns facts: what else would they be plagiarizing? Looking over things, it seems that NBF either doesn't care, doesn't get it, or hopes we just don't notice, and that's the only reason they just keep doing it after the first time they were caught at it. Ravenswing 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I really hope Norfolkbigfish can, at this last of last chances, attempt to take ownership of their mistakes. By that, I do not mean continually writing "if you extensively investigate the article I wrote and extensively detail all the plagiarism I included, I guess I can bother to look up synonyms and move words around". I mean writing "if you investigate the article I wrote you will not find any plagiarism, because I made sure of that". By the looks of it though, they seem to be going on a conveniently-timed wikibreak, so we might not get even that basic level of responsibility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• After at least two years of warnings? I envy your optimism. I am much more pestimistic: several editors have wasted precious time to review the articles Norfolkbigfish copied from reliable sources but the opposition of the article's delisting was Norfolkbigfish's only independent act. WP:NOTHERE 02:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs)

• Thanks @AirshipJungleman29, convenient it may be, but I am genuinely going away o holiday today with limited access to reference books. On my return I will get this article to the state you suggest. Namely, "if you investigate this article I wrote you will not find any plagiarism, because I made sure of that" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: your latest edit contains whole sentences that are not verified by the allegedly cited source ([193]). If you do not compare your edits with the allegedly cited sources, how will you secure that your new edits remain free of plagiarism and copyvio? Why do you think that WP is a community of your employees destined to detect your plagiarism by reading through dozens of sources? Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Owning a page

• Maximilien Robespierre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Taksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Encyclopédisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. While I’m aware my own behavior on that page isn’t the best, it seems @Taksen: isn’t respecting Wp:Ownership of content. From the talk page archives of Maximilian Robespierre, he seems to want to make the article a paper about the opinion on Robespierre he made himself over the years. Currently I’m trying to start to edit the Legacy section, but he’s reverting small bits of the text nonstop without discussing any of it. A few months ago he didn’t want to accept that the article was too long, so he used the occasion and "reintroduced" a few deleted paragraphs, which @Nikkimaria: just removed again. He has the bad habit of going through every user’s contributions when someone starts a discussion on the Talk Page of the article, and he pretty much leaves at lest one message on every section of Talk. He contributed to the Robespierre article since 2019, most of his work is great, but he likes to disrespect some key rules. When I added some bits to the Legacy section, he didn’t like that, and removed content added without any bad intent mentioning French political parties (translated from fr.wiki), initially because it was "out of focus", then for "propaganda", and then he added an entire paragraph for one Chinese historian (with a link for the Peoples Republic of China, of course) with a source, deleted the source for the other problematic paragraph (old link) and a few hours later he removed it. (I added it again with a working link for the ref)

He continually wants to represent the pro-Robespierrist School as "Marxist" exclusively, a claim explicitly made the opposing Neo-liberal and revisionist School of the 1960s. The revisionist historian Furet gets an entire quote. My problem with this, and this is clear from previous interactions the user has had on the Talk Page of that article, he’s been editing it since 2019 and he doesn’t let anyone do it after him. If he’d just let go, and discuss, but no. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm just passing by, but edit summaries like this are not doing any favors for you. I suggest taking a real hard look at WP:NPA and WP:BOOMERANG. Now that said, diffs like this and this followed by WP:STONEWALLING by @Taksen are even further over the line and show clear OWN issues. Intervention definitely needed here, Taksen is far over the line. BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Turning articles into rambling messes has been Taksen's specialty for years and years. Here's [194] what the Rasputin article looked like after years of Taksen-bloat, before others took the hatchet to it; and here (that section and several following) are the hit-head-against-brick wall attempts to get Taksen to understand. The conclusion (in that 2017 discussion) was to revert the article to a version from FOUR YEARS EARLIER, before Taksen got involved. Taksen's reaction here was characteristic. EEng 18:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow this is just a horrible way to interact with other editors. If he's been doing this for 7 years, I would honestly strongly consider an all-out WP:CBAN. BrigadierG (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not for nothing, over at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Taksen we've got Deze gebruiker is momenteel geblokkeerd. De laatste regel uit het blokkeerlogboek wordt hieronder ter referentie weergegeven: 23:54, november 2, 2018 Natuur12 overleg bijdragen heeft Taksen overleg bijdragen geblokkeerd voor de duur van onbepaald (aanmaken accounts uitgeschakeld) (Privacyschending). I need not translate. EEng 23:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Now he’s literally "saving" (edit summaries) his content from Robespierre to Reign of Terror, Accusateur public and Legal history of France. Encyclopédisme (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Against my better judgement, I looked into this thread. My conclusion: Taksen is a menace and impossible to reason with. He is of the believe that any article he's edited significantly is owned by him. Something needs to be done, be it a partial block or a straight up indef. This is a behavioral problem going back the better part of a decade, clearly he isn't about to change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• If he wants to own up to "mak[ing] the article a paper about the opinion on Robespierre he made himself", he's not doing himself a service. 15K words on one of/the most important figures in modern European history, and that's all we've got? A Bourbon wouldn't want to be associated with it. Your best bet, Encyclopédisme is to collect several knowledgable and collaborative editors, work on it in one of your sandboxes, take the finished, polished article to WP:FAC, let it receive a dissective review, get it promoted to Featured Article status, and then—finally—you'll have an actual, real Wikipedia policy behind you for purposes of future-proofing. À la lanterne, aristos!!code: fra promoted to code: fr ——Serial Number 54129 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I really just wanted to translate some bits of the French article in the Legacy section to en.wiki. It was decided the article was too long, by consensus, I didn’t participate in the discussion, I only read it on the Talk Page. Taksen doesn’t even allow that. If I had to rewrite the entire article, oh, that would be a drama. But I’m not doing that. (And from reading that section of the general policy, I don’t get why I’d need to). Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then read it—again—but this time a view of shepherding an article. Which you seem to feel needs to occur to proect the page from Taksen. ——Serial Number 54129 11:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Normantas Bataitis continually WP:EASTEREGGing links

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

Normantas Bataitis keeps WP:EASTEREGGing birth/death place links even after the guideline is brought to their attention diff

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]
5. [199]
6. [200]
7. [201]
8. [202]
9. [203]

Partial list above, just what I have spot checked. User also keeps adding excessive detail to place entries (Template:Infobox person):

1. [204]
2. [205]

and I keep having to explain Weimar Republic is not a place.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have observed this too but I haven't brought it up with Normantas Bataitis, yet. In the past, they had been responsive when I brought up other issues in their editing: [206], [207]. @Normantas Bataitis:, could you perhaps comment here? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm listening. Normantas Bataitis (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we ended up here because you continued to add WP:EASTEREGG-style links after Fountains of Bryn Mawr brought the issue up on your Talk page. I'd be interested to know two things: 1. Why you didn't respond to Fountains of Bryn Mawr on your Talk page, 2. What your view on these links is. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I didn't respond because I thought that he was just wanting to pick a quarrel because I was doing these links from 2022 and no one said to me that it is a bad thing to do. 2. My view is that Easter egg-type links are needed because the countries at the time of some people's births are different, so I think that this should be pointed out and I am not the only one who does that. For example, if some Indian person was born in Bengal in 1945, I can't write "Bengal Presidency", because this name was changed to "Bengal Province" in 1935 and I am forced to do an Easter egg link because it would be misleading to write "Bengal Presidency". In my personal opinion, countries should be linked as I do because it helps to widen the knowledge – a thing that encyclopedias should do. Normantas Bataitis (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, and looking at Normantas' previous responses to feedback, might there be some confusion arising out of linking to WP:EASTEREGG rather than MOS:EGG? WP:EASTEREGG is a how-to guide that provides more flexibility to not follow, which may explain Normantas' response above. @Normantas Bataitis: Cjhard (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Sneuper and RUSUKR, BLP

I alerted Sneuper (talk · contribs), who is not extended confirmed, about WP:RUSUKR in January. I also had to give them a warning due to a BLP violation. Despite this, they have continued to make many more edits in the topic area, which is prohibited for them, and I gave them one more warning today about this. After this warning, they still continued to make edits in the topic area. Not once have they responded on their talk page. Mellk (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that they responded on their talk page to a notice about a copyright violation where they did not indicate an understanding that they cannot make edits in this topic area. Mellk (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(Bystander comment) And as the person who warned them about the copyright violations, they also seem to have a poor to nonexistent understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies. I've spot checked two of sets their edits so far, and both of them included the addition of copyrighted materials. They have 300 other edits I will be manually checking. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sexist comment by Chris Troutman

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

---

I was pretty shocked by this comment to LDickinson by Chris troutman, where he suggests that women are biologically "more interested in people than things", and not "predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly" or "managing confrontation". I see from these comments by Firefly and Novem Linguae that I was not the only person to read these comments as Troutman complaining that he would rather be talking to a man, or — my interpretation — that the WMF should only hire men for such roles.

Such comments are wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia where, last time I checked, we are operating in the 21st century. Regardless of what Jordan Peterson has to say about it, suggesting to a woman's face that she is biologically inferior and should be replaced with a man who is "biologically predisposed" to "manage confrontation" seems pretty beyond the pale from an experienced editor (or an inexperienced one). Confrontationally yours, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

His comments are already repulsive on their own, but him calling Jordan Peterson "insightful" really made me mad. In 2024, people who push those opinions onwiki should be promptly indeffed, no ifs or buts about it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"If I were asking questions about accountability, I might prefer to ask someone who is biologically predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly." what on earth. Secretlondon (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What the hell. I've blocked them for a week for that completely unacceptable comment. Not opposed to further sanctions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Good block by Ingenuity. Some people with psychology degrees (not me) might also conclude that replying to questions about accountability with a statement that one feels attacked or uncomfortable are typical of those who are more interested in people than things.—In addition to uncivilly averring that WMF ought to have hired a man, Chris Troutman seems to have neglected Wikipedia's policy on civility and that policy's recommendation to attempt to be open with a user when emotions are hurt and one is made to feel unsafe. LDickinson followed that recommendation in the reply that Chris Troutman regarded so dismissively (and no amount of couching that dismissal it in saying that some people would say it but not me—for those people were not the ones who posted it via Chris Troutman's account—exculpates the comment; it's the very same talking-around-it approach that discomfitted LDickinson to begin with. Civility is a policy and a core pillar of the project and layers of abstraction aren't a defense). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• The comment in question was a response to my previous criticism of LDickinson for making a claim about WMF finances then refusing to discuss whether the claim was factual despite multiple people questioning it. For the record, I was unaware of LDickinson's gender until just now and reject the idea that the all-too-common practice of WMF employees refusing to engage the community in discussion is in any way gender based. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that a worthy discussion on the questions here would still be fruitful Tonymetz 💬 05:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Great block. Mr. Troutman has been on an incivility spree for many years with no action or response from the community until now. I would invite interested parties to review his talk page history of warnings from just the beginning of this year until now as just one small example. It's one thing to get overheated in a discussion; it happens to the best of us. But Mr. Troutman appears to relish going out of his way to be as cruel as possible, and it's wonderful to see someone finally put a stop to it. His citing of Jordan Peterson, a deeply disturbed individual who is at the forefront of the modern culture wars funded by right-wing billionaires, is even more unusual. The timing with the right-wing attacks on Katherine Maher at NPR makes me think it's just a coincidence, but there is something in the air at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Great block. Comments like that are unacceptable anywhere. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm often skeptical of the necessity of blocks of experienced editors, but I think this one was warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the preliminary assessment by Viriditas, and have myself observed low level incivility and personal attacks by troutman going back many years. Chris's general demeanor is often unnecessarily unfriendly and confrontational any time a disagreement arises. I have been coughing and running a fever in the last 48 hours although I just tested negative for COVID-19, and so I do not have the energy for a detailed investigation. I encourage other capable editors to do a deeper dive. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cullen328: hope you're feeling better. I did do a small dive and found some issues with civility: [208] (although he apologized later), [209], his response in [210], [211], [212], you give the impression you've ignored what I wrote due to your single-minded obsession. [213], and [214]. Again, this is just from a quick check. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And this is not a new problem. [215] ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I also did a quick search. A 2018 discussion ended with a civility reminder, about a year after he was warned that admins could sanction him for any further infractions in the link you provided. I also saw some transphobic comments at Athaenara's siteban discussion a year and a half ago to which several transgender and non-binary editors expressed discomfort, but everyone just dropped the issue after the discussion closed. It's an open secret that Chris has always ignored basic expectations around incivility and bigotry that—until today—no one has ever done anything about beyond finger wag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

herearesome diffs with Chris's most interesting comments during the Athaenara fiasco, if it is useful. _Dial^mayo 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Going through their talk history I was reminded of [216] which sort of seems ironic considering what resulted in this thread since I guess we should only have male admins anyway because females cannot handle confrontation or something. (Or maybe we should only have female admins because the males are only interested in things and not people?) Anyway while the earlier comment is not sanctionable, I do think their latest comment proves that they were right back in 2022. The writing is indeed on the wall, and Chris troutman isn't someone suited for editing wikipedia which has nothing to do with their biology but all because of their willingness to say fundamentally unacceptable things to others here. Given their defence of another editor who similarly personally attacked someone with highly offensive commentary, it's perhaps not surprising they have now done the same. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a disinterested third party. Swift action seems to have been taken on the subject. It's poor behavior to continue piling onto the subject especially since they've been blocked and are unable to defend themselves.

I would like to see a better deliberation process where the subject can present a defense through a third party. Regardless, I don't see anything of value being added here now that action has already been taken. Tonymetz 💬 05:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Tonymetz, please be aware that Chris troutman can edit their own talk page and can make constructive comments there and ask that those comments be copied over here. Although I assume that your unable to defend themselves remark was in good faith, it is incorrect factually. Please check into things before commenting. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly a viable way to have a discussion. The pile-on is out of line. What good is being contributed here? The user has been blocked. Tonymetz 💬 05:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reopening statement

• I've reopened and unarchived this thread due to a new comment by Chris, stating that they "stand by" their earlier comment and that they were blocked for "offending the political beliefs of a particular admin, who was egged on by others of the same persuasion". Since Chris thinks that I cannot remain impartial, I will not make any additional administrative actions in this matter. However, this needs to be resolved, since my earlier block obviously did not solve the issue. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Solve what issue? You blocked me for seven days as punishment for what I said. You're not changing my mind by blocking me nor am I undergoing some Maoist struggle session. All you did was prevent me from keeping WP:BDC up to date and reverting vandalism for a week. A lot of good that did anyone. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

When ten or so uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that your behavior was well out of line with Wikipedia's civility requirements, you cannot seriously believe that the issue here is with Ingenuity rather than with your behavior. No one wants you to undergo a "Maoist struggle session", they want you to treat fellow Wikipedians of all genders with a modicum of respect. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already pledged not to repeat my past comments. I was still blocked. I did not ask for any unblock nor did I make an issue of the block being punitive. I don't have to recant. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I was pleased when I saw your promise on your talk page, which was largely why I originally decided to bring the issue to ANI for outside opinions rather than unilaterally block. But now that I've seen you defend that comment as "truthful" and write that you "stand by it", I don't have much faith that you intend to avoid being sexist towards editors going forward. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple matter that one of the necessary basic political rocks upon which the idea of Wikipedia rests is that a person should not expect to be excluded from editing or discounted as a valuable editor on the basis of something like sex, gender, ethnicity, etc. If Chris Troutman is unable to operate within those bounds, granting that they do represent a politic, then they probably should not be editing Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not block you as punishment, but rather as a preventative measure to encourage you to not make such comments in the future. However, that clearly did not work. So, I will make it very clear for you: I do not think you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia if you think that making sexist comments towards others - whether fellow editors or WMF employees - is acceptable. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect regardless of their gender. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

However, that clearly did not work. -- what didn't work? Has the subject re-offended? Tonymetz 💬 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I was shocked to see the reblock and came here to find out what had happened. I share your concerns about double jeopardy. But "a truthful comment to a WMF employee (which I stand by)", well... that's just saying the same thing again. Double jeopardy is when you get dinged twice for the same thing, not when you do the same thing twice and get dinged for it each time. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

can you be clearer on the expectation here? The subject was blocked based on admin action. It now sounds like the subject is expected to apologize ? Can you be a bit clearer on the administrative expectation here? Tonymetz 💬 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the administrative expectation, but my expectation is that Mr Troutman will fuck off and not darken our doors ever again. Everyone who does not come out with such troglodytic statements should be able to edit Wikipedia (or even work for the WMF, about whom I have been very critical) without looking over their shoulder to see whether he is goimg to do it again. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I see this is quickly expanding in scope. Having seen his comment, I found it quite confusing and, to be frank, bizarre. Despite this rather intriguing viewpoint, I think being called out for it and rigorously interrogated about it and then told the obligatory 'sorry, no. Just no' is a far better remedy here rather than sentencing week-long blocks or longer over political Yu-Gi-Oh. After all, we do have the right to respectfully refuse someone's idea if it is outside the general consensus. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

blocked

Nah, I think it was beyond time for an indef block, which I have just issued. People can disagree on things like the use of reliable sources and so on, but doubling down on sexism is a dealbreraker. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

this sounds like double jeopardy at this point. Are we punishing editors for their opinions now too? I thought ANI was not supposed to be punative

The subject should be allowed to continue and if they err again, a new ANI should be opened with the copious context from here. Tonymetz 💬 20:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing punitive here, the block is to prevent furhter sexist/toxic comments from this user, which, if you read the whole thread, has been an ongoing problem for many years. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The entire thread was context for the initial block. Since the block has lifted, the subject has not made any further violations. So far the previous block has worked to prevent the subject from the bad behavior.

ANI is meant to be preventative. The continued calls for a permanent block are clearly punitive. Tonymetz 💬 20:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Troutman was being sexist, and users get indeffed for that all the time. Hope this helps. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the idea is preventing future cases of editors having to deal with sexism, which sucks individually and creates a toxic, biased environment if permitted over time. Remsense诉 06:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The user did say they would not make these comments again, and I do think Troutman will have been at least spooked by this ANI not to do it again. I think we should make this ANI a final warning, and if issues flare up again even once, il support an indef. Right now il take his word on fixing his behavior if he were unbanned once again. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

He's already had two warnings from the cvommunity and a block, and his reaction was "I stand behind what I said". He's free to appeal the block at any time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this was a Good Block for precisely this reason. Seems like we'd just end up back here again anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The earlier pile-on reflected poorly on the admin process. This hasty perma-ban was even sloppier.

Let's review the WP:NOTPENAL policy and see how it could have been better applied here.

1. Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Little warning was given before the first block. No indication that either punishment was preventative.
2. Topic bans, page protections, partial blocks and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. No indication that all options were exhausted before the block or perma-ban
3. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If anything it looks like the week-long ban was used to goad the subject for a latent perma-ban. No real effort to help talk the subject into better behavior. Just a pile on of offenses from 8 years back, 90% of which were made when the subject couldn't reasonably defend themselves. then they're perma-banned within hours?
4. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with them before blocking? -- Subject was banned via the first block before being allowed to engage with the original ANI dog-pile. Little if any warning was given in either instance. Subject even offered to stop the behavior with no mercy shown.

I don't know the dude. He's obviously made some mistakes. This frenzy reflects poorly on the admin process. I would hope someone more senior would review.

My interpretation was that Just Step Sideways expected a Mea Culpa when the subject returned, a deference to the admin process, and when that didn't happen, decided to escalate punishment. Tonymetz 💬 23:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I had zero prior involvement here other than being aware of the above thread, so I don't know how you arrived at that bizzare interpretation.
• I never expected or asked for an apology, why would I? He didn't do anything to me.
• Your contention that no previous warning was given is easily refuted by the previous discussions linked further up, including a formal community admonishment, which is usually the last step before an indef block, so the one-week block was, if anything, a slap on the wrist to someone who absolutely knew better and made a choice.
• There is no "admin process" I don't know what that is even supposed to mean.
• There is no "someone more senior" to review this, the community is reviewing it and so far, support for the block seems pretty strong even if some find it regrettable.
• Chris is not "permabanned" he is indefinitely blocked. Those are two very different things, and as I've already said, he can appeal at any time.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Chris Troutman's insistence that his claim that women are biologically disposed differently and less suited to working for the Wikimedia Foundation was truthful and not insulting (I made a truthful comment to a WMF employee (which I stand by)) combined with the long-term pattern of such behavior are sufficient grounds for considering this block preventative. Additionally, when Chris Troutman said he pledged not to repeat my past comments links to a comment that states this was the last time I'll be posting to any WMF: in other words, he pledged to not talk to WMF employees; he seems to have not pledged to stop claiming that women aren't as fit to participate in certain elements of Wikipedia as others. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Chris's issues with mismanagement in the WMF, and he's correct that we have a problem with overlooking blatant POV-motivated editing. But it's apparent that he either doesn't understand why people might have an issue with misogyny and why it's fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, or he does understand and pretends he doesn't to make a political point. Chris has been a productive editor, and I'd prefer if we could avoid all of this. But as seen in the diffs posted above (before this was prematurely closed as a "pile on" to kick the can down the road), he has engaged in uncivil and bigoted behavior for years, and unless he has some epiphany, I don't see this ending any way other than a ban. — I see that one has been issued while I was writing this, and if it's challenged than I expect I will endorse it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always found the close odd and planned to say as much but then decided not to bother and leave it for someone else to challenge or query if they felt the same, but no one did. Ingenuity acknowledged when blocking as can be seen above, that their block might not be enough and it was clear other editors were concerned about Chris Troutman's wider behaviour.

It's perfectly normal that a block does not preclude discussion of a stronger sanction, especially for the editor's wider behaviour. (It also doesn't preclude discussion that the block was inappropriate although no one was suggesting that at the time of close.) I don't know why any editor would think that, as it's never been a standard at either AN or ANI. It's true that someone needs to actually propose some other sanction or overturning the existing one, and if a discussion just continues into criticism of an editor with no one willing to propose some other sanction then it might be best to close it, since WP:RFC/U is rightfully no longer a thing. But I think that was premature at the time as the discussion was still in an early stage of analysing the editor's past behaviour.

I mention all that to emphasise that IMO even without Chris Troutman's latest comment, a site ban or indef was one possible outcome if the discussion hadn't been closed; and the block never precluded that. And even with the discussion long closed, and no further action from Chris Troutman, it was always possible for someone to open a thread probably at AN with the evidence they'd collected over the 2 weeks or whatever they'd looked in to it, proposing some such sanction. There was never any need for new action from Chris Troutman unless the community had already decided all that behaviour wasn't even for such a sanction but that never happened. With Chris Troutman's latest comment, it seems even more justified without even needing to consider their wider behaviour in great detail.

While there's generally disagreement on how much leeway we should give editors to just blow off steam and so allow them to suggest they're going to repeat some misbehaviour and only block if they actually do so, in the case of such blatant and harmful sexism targeting others on Wikipedia, I think blocking the editor when they suggest they might repeat the misbehaviour before they've actually done so is reasonable. I'd note that if an editor makes a legal threat, and then when asked to withdraw it says 'I withdraw that specific legal threat, but I stand by my right to make legal threats here' then IMO 99% of the time they aren't going to be unblocked. And as harmful as legal threats are IMO the sexism targeting another here shown in that comment is much worse.

This is actually a good example of why it's important that blocking should be always preventative and not punitive. If blocking was punitive then perhaps "double jeopardy" and relative concepts may apply. But since it's preventative, then any editor even arbcom members and admins needs to be aware that if there's sufficient reason to think they may misbehave in a way that fundamentally violates our policies and guidelines and is extremely harmful to the community, they may be blocked over that rather than over a specific case of them doing so.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Chris has done a lot of good on this project, and I generally encourage erring on the side of lots of chances and permissive sanctions, but Chris has also been telling us for years that he either has difficulty or is not interested to work in a collaborative environment where there are expectations like WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL. It doesn't take long to find shocking comments through the years, usually about newbies, the mental health of our users, or gender. I think because Chris has frequently self-identified as a misanthrope and a newbie-biter, people might think it's a joke or a quirk, but it just kind of contextualizes chronic antipathy towards some of our rules and norms: jarring insensitivity, insults, assumptions of bad faith, etc. Those who take issue with incivility are fragile snowflakes/sheeple operating according to fascist groupthink. Various examples of this, including general hostility towards new users, etc.: [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229]. Contrary to some of the comments, you don't have to agree with any of the people you're responding to -- you just can't be so hostile/belligerent/insulting while disagreeing (AGF, BITE, CIVIL, BATTLEGROUND, etc.). To be clear, I see that many of these diffs were already covered in this thread from 2017, which resulted in overwhelming support for an admonishment. I'm mainly countering the "this is punishment" narrative as ignorant of a pretty well established pattern. All of this said, I do think Chris cares about this project, some of his rhetoric notwithstanding, and I hope an indefinite block won't be infinite. I think the big question will be for Chris to convince an unblocking admin that he can commit to our behavioral policies and guidelines without any carveouts for ABF, BITE, or misanthropy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved newish user, I can't help notice that if I had made those comments, I would have been blocked indefinitely with the quickness. As user's history and past work should and does matter, but new users who want to help are often blocked/banned in an offhanded way without second chances. I might get banned for posting this, in fact. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I might get banned for posting this Your comment isn't a problem. Although don't expect great things to happen by posting in random threads at ANI as a new user. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a more established user, I believe you're correct (except for the bit about being banned for posting that). Novem Linguae's response is also correct, though. New editors who hang around ANI don't tend to have great longevity. My advice would be to keep away for your own sanity, if nothing else. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Chris' comment that he was blocked for was a gross breach of our sense of community. While I don't expect him to grovel and apologise, I also cannot accept him doubling down on it as a "truthful comment (which he stands by)". This shows a potential willingness to repeat the conduct, that cannot be accepted, and the block is therefore a good one to prevent ongoing disruption. If Chris withdraws his statement around "truthful comment which he stands by" and/or makes an undertaking not to make any future comments of a similar nature that so grossly offend our sense of community (note: not an apology, although that would be nice, but unrealistic at this point), I would support an unblock on the basis that the ongoing risk of further disruption is therefore reduced. However, it would go without saying that any future breaches would be handled swiftly and strongly. Anyways, that's my $0.02 on this rather unfortunate saga. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites's generosity is admirable but after reading the diffs provided seems misplaced. Chris Troutman's indulgent and unnecessary vocal dismissiveness about people going through suicidal ideation, blunt misogyny, multiple accusations that editors upholding rules about civility are "neo-fascists" and "sheeple", and direct orders to new editors to leave the project accompanied by claims the community doesn't want editors to join are so hostile and socially destructive that I think any unblock would hinge on Chris Troutman somehow demonstrating an at-present-seemingly-implausible change of mind about what behavior is appropriate on the project. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• I always find it sad when longtime editors get indefinitely blocked. They gave so many years to the project. But this is a collaborative editing project and I've seen very productive, oldtimers get indefinitely blocked because they were abrasive or dismissive to other editors or just couldn't get along with others. So many editors get brought to ANI because of policy or guideline violations but the interpersonal aspect of working with other editors is essential for this project to continue on in a tense harmony since we are a global group of editors who have a wide variety of attitudes and opinions on every aspect of life. It's actually a testament to the Five Pillars and editors adherence to them that we don't run into problems like this more often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Completely endorse the block. I've repeatedly seen poor behaviour from this editor. Such blatant misogyny is simply not tolerable on a collaborative project. As others have stated, any newer editor would be unquestionably indef blocked for this behaviour - for a more experienced editor it is arguably a more serious problem as shown by his record of ongoing, chronic incivility towards many editors. By doubling down on his comments, and in fact asserting their truth, he had shown he has a genuine problem with misogyny. He should not be unblocked without clear community consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Contrary to some of the comments, you don't have to agree with any of the people you're responding to -- you just can't be so hostile/belligerent/insulting while disagreeing (AGF, BITE, CIVIL, BATTLEGROUND, etc.)." Absolutely agree on that one. Doesn't matter if you're a newbie or an expert editor - if you're not going to collaborate with other good faith editors or abide by the rules and guidelines, you won't last long around here. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Unsure whether an indef is needed atp, but Chris has a massive issue with civility that's existed for years now. Every single interaction I've seen him have with new editors consists almost entirely of him snarkily insulting their intelligence, competence, or work while being of absolutely zero help in actually explaining anything to them. He seems to enjoy insulting other people every opportunity he gets, and it's unsurprising that he's chosen to frame this latest incident as him pissing off the woke mob or whatever. AryKun (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  What you say is true - that illustrates exactly why an indef is needed. How many times does someone need formal warnings and admonishments? AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• For any who don't have time to click every diff, I'll flag here this link from Dialmayo's second link further up the thread where Chris Troutman says what he thinks of trans women editors: I can only imagine how women might feel surrounded by those who don't fit the traditional definition. Of course, you folks aren't interested in humanity, are you? I hope the community can realize Chris Troutman's behavior goes beyond rudeness and biting (though those would be sufficient grounds for the block). Chris Troutman also has a pattern of openly questioning both the ability of other editors and their very humanity based on their personal attributes.
  I'll add that the community may need to be mindful of the possibility of a sockpuppet from Chris Troutman in the future. He has openly said (permanent link) that if forced off Wikipedia, he would create a completely new account and just start over from scratch after a year or two away, so as not to be recognized. There are few behavioral rules this user seems to have respect for. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've missed some context there: Were I forced off Wikipedia (because I edit under my real name and reveal where I go to school). This is clearly allowed under the clean start policy. And it arose in circumstances where he was doubting the veracity of the explanation given by a new user's unusual behaviour, not promotion of block evasion. Local Variable (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  That quote is taken out of context. The full quote is Were I forced off Wikipedia (because I edit under my real name and reveal where I go to school), I'd create a completely new account and just start over from scratch after a year or two away, so as not to be recognized - the parenthetical makes it clear that the hypothetical was about real life events not Wikipedia drama. * Pppery * _{it has begun...}

• Good block, much of troutman's behavior has been indistinguishable from that of a troll since I joined the project. Mach61 18:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is WP:Gravedancing. Someone with 50,000 edits and multiple advanced permissions is clearly not indistinguishable from a troll. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Pppery this is why I qualified my statement with much of. I'm willing to substantiate my comment with specific diffs if you so desire. Mach61 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  You might be a while, 'much of' would mean possibly a thousand diffs of showing unrepentant 'trolling' Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Fantastic Mr. Fox "much" as in the absolute number of incidents, not a literal percentage. Is that precise enough for you? Mach61 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggest closing this entire thread. Chris Troutman is blocked, and it looks like there is consensus for the block. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly the consensus is supporting the indef, so can someone kindly close this thread before further gravedancing occurs. Even with all their quirks and downsides, they were one heck of a prolific editor. Nothing good will come with more gravedancing. Let them go. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  A "quirk" is having a colorful username; a "downside" might be a proclivity to misspell "rogue" as "rouge". When it comes to misogyny, transphobia, and misanthropy, we can call a spade a spade. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes and yes, Hydrangeans. I agree with you. I was being civil (not to be mistaken as taking transphobia or misogyny lightly), but there's no point in continuing this thread. They aren't even trying to evade the block or appealing. So let them go in peace. That's all I'm saying. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Bravehm

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [230]), likely a sock [231], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [232], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
2. After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [233] [234]
3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [235]
4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [236] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
5. Same here [237]
6. And here [238]
7. And here [239]
8. And here [240]
9. And here [241]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [242]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [243]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[244] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
  • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
  • According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
  • According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.

  I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [245] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: [246], [247]

They are not removal but restoration.

I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [248]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"More unsourced" not "unsourced"

I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".

And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [249] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for closure

Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [250]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.

User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User edit warring copyrighted material into article

Xplore22 (talk · contribs) has spent the past day or so repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Island Rail Corridor, which another user has been taking out due to the promotional nature of the text. When I warned them about the copyright issues, they responded by removing my revdel request and adding the material back into the article. When I undid that, they did it again. A temporary block might be in order. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Thankyou for reporting this user Skulymann (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The user was warned on their talk page around ten minutes ago. They haven't made any edits for around an hour so we'll see if it plays out. I believe a temporary block is warranted, however if they keep going along this line it should be an indef block. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 01:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This user is a (rather obnoxious) SPA with a WP:RGW attitude, a bad case of page ownership, and zero self-awareness. They previously blanked nearly the entire page twice in February and their edits have been challenged by multiple editors for promotional tone and copyvio. I'd honestly just indef them now, they clearly aren't interested in collaboration or compromise. This reply on their talk page says it all, really: Island Rail has been a part of my life for the last 13 years, I've worked on the railway here on Island (I live here) directly in a number of capacities. I know Island Rail and you clearly do not so stop making edits on something when you don't know the facts. Langford was not a flag stop, that article is incorrect. Langford also does not have a "sign post" it has an actual open concept station building that was recently rebuilt this year. Victoria West is an actual Station Name Sign, of which if you knew railway terminology you would know that this means it is a station whether there's a building or not. Victoria West is the new terminus of the Island Rail Corridor on the south end, because, if you actually knew Island Rail you would know that the Johnson Street Bridge was replaced a number of years ago and no longer has a rail crossing. Additionally, as a result, Victoria station (the building) no longer exists either. The former E&N Railway has been truncated to Victoria West (Station Name Sign) and that is the new southern terminus of the railway. Again, STOP making edits to factual enhancements of this Wiki article when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Honestly surprised they haven't been indeffed already. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've posted info on WP:COI on their Talk page, let's see if that helps. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ylogm's unblock request

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

---

Long story short: User:Ylogm is an editor who has done a lot of work on articles regarding early modern Chinese political history. At times, they have been the only editor actively working in these areas. Unfortunately, in the past they have also engaged in unacceptable patterns of behavior: an ANI thread from a few years ago concerning their disruptive editing (e.g. unexplained blanking and general lack of communication) got them INDEF'd, and defensibly so. Worse, they then resorted to socking (SPI case here) in order to keep editing. Obviously, their contributions do not excuse their conduct.

However, last month I made an earnest attempt to get through to them, because they seemed genuinely confused and unaware of exactly what they had done wrong. They were very receptive: it seems they just needed a direct dialogue regarding why they were being disruptive, and I think I may have been the first to engage in a real dialogue with them. Seemingly they just want to get back to work while rectifying the previous issues with their conduct. See User talk:Min968 for the unblock request and my in-depth conversation with them. I know there's a fancy page for admins that has a queue of unblock requests and such, but to my knowledge they have been patiently waiting for a month so I figure posting a notice here couldn't hurt. I believe them when they say they want to contribute constructively and are capable of doing so, and I think it is worth giving them a second chance—or if you prefer, simply another chance. Remsense诉 06:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. Apparently they've made additional accounts during April, even though I tried my best to make it clear to them that my support was contingent on never touching another sock ever again. Was still worth a shot, in any case. Thank you very much @NinjaRobotPirate and @MSGJ for taking a look, in any case. Remsense诉 14:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Removing content without valid reason

User id @Moxy: removed images from Head of government article without valid explanation. [251] These images are used for example since a long time. They also removed images from Head of State article without any discussion. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which is not what ANI is for. Discuss it with them on the talk page, and keep in mind that longevity ≠ consensus or justification for content being on an article. See WP:BRD. Remsense诉 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sudden removal of content without valid explanation is unacceptable. They have to discuss and hear opinion of other users in talk page. It seems like vandalism. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a misunderstanding of site guidelines. They provided an imprecise, quick reasoning which may be acceptable to many editors. Generally, editors are not required to ask permission to make edits, but they are generally required to discuss contentious edits if challenged. You are at the "discuss" stage of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, where presumably they would expand on their reasoning. Remsense诉 06:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Please try to obtain consensus in the talk page of respective article before removing the content (which wasn't disputed by anyone since a long time). JoshuaJ28 (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I've just said, they don't need to ask permission first (especially when supported by content guidelines) and longevity isn't a valid reason in itself. Remsense诉 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Waiting on you Talk:Head of government#Photomontage.Moxy🍁 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not best practice to give a test edit warning template to an editor when you have already been told it is a content dispute (and therefore not a test edit) and the other editor has already replied here. CMD (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

'Tis a content dispute & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lord Milner

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

---

Lord Milner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to specialise in articles relating to Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, creating some spectacularly bad articles in the process.

The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner. They apparently recreated this at The Lives of Lord Alfred Milner and Sir Winston Churchill in April 2023, and it has once again been recreated and is currently at Wikipedia:The Lives of Lord Alfred Milner and Sir Winston Churchill, largely due to a botched attempt to move it to article space in March this year.

Various attempts have been made to create Timeline of Alfred Milner. Drafts have been rejected at User talk:Lord Milner#Your submission at Articles for creation: Timeline of Alfred Milner (October 9) (2021), User talk:Lord Milner#Your submission at Articles for creation: Timeline of Alfred Milner (March 26) (2022), feedback was offered at User talk:Lord Milner#August 2022: Lord Milner timeline, and a creation in article space was moved to draft space at User talk:Lord Milner#Timeline of Alfred Milner moved to draftspace in March this year. At Draft talk:Timeline of Alfred Milner they have signalled their intent to resubmit the draft, which simply isn't suitable for publication on Wikipedia. Entries like "110. 28 Mar 00: Alfred attends a dinner in Bloemfontein" and "183. 10 Oct 03: Alfred meets with Emma, his old nurse" are obviously a level of detail that's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.

A List of Doullens Conference Witnesses is a horrible fork of Doullens Conference, which appears to consist almost entirely of lengthy quotes from what particpants, or other authors, said about the conference.

They also appear to want to own articles they create, with comments such as No matter what draft, long or short, is approved, I would like to have sole custodian over it. Do you know how to arrange that? and I will also be its caretaker, to protect it and assure it isn't corrupted. Even more blatantly, their published article contains the bold-faced order of "To Wikipedia Editors: Please do not alter the information below. It was manually created, and it will be very hard to recreate. If you have any questions, please ask me. Thank you".

Perhaps some kind of topic-ban is in order, unless that's simply going to move their problematic editing to other areas of the encyclopedia? Kathleen's bike (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia:The Lives of Lord Alfred Milner and Sir Winston Churchill as it is largely a recreation of the first version. – robertsky (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the subpages and pages linked to his account. The ones I'm seeing are full of sources, yet empty, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bugnet, or weird article-likes in user space, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Milner/Lord_Milner%27s_People_%26_Places and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Milner/Manpower_Committee. Yet some of them are not bad articles (at least they're well-made) like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Troop_Movements_During_Operation_Michael. We need to take a long look and figure out what to do here. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it's that complicated—did you see the strident, over-the-top WP:OWN nonsense cited above? INDEF, we don't need them around, they're not here to build an encyclopedia if that's actually their attitude about anything. Any material that we can pick out of their userspace we can do on our own time afterward. Remsense诉 14:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna make an argument for good faith, but I'm not sure anymore. Something, something, I'm losing all sense of what's allowed here anymore, support a INDEF, I'm gonna need to inject a Monster into my veins and binge the entire rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As you can see a few headings above, I'm almost too patient with people who seem to care about the site and collaboration. I sometimes have to force myself not to go out of my way arguing for good faith from someone who has explicitly argued against my doing so like this. AGF is a vital principle 99.5% of the time—but this is the 0.5% where the duck quacks "I am not here to build an encyclopedia" deafeningly loudly. Remsense诉 15:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To add to the above concerns regarding 'Lord Milner', see this appalling example of gratuitous racism in a 2022 talk page post. [252] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

see also these posts at Talk:Scientific racism, this post at Talk:Blackface, and this post at Talk:Kara Hultgreen - not a one-off ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And there's more: [253] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the obvious racism and the other issues presented I've indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

At first I thought this was a WP:CIR issue, but it clearly isn't. Good block. Local Variable (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Jesus [254] their response to the block, either troll or severe CIR IDHT, either way TPA-revoke or not quite that level yet? Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

[255] and it continues, note that no one has responded to them, they are just doubling down responding to themself. Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Still posting nonsense on his talk page. Regardless of whether this is trolling, or he actually thinks that his racist drivel might ever be acceptable here, we clearly shouldn't be providing a platform for him. Definitely needs TPA revoked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've given Lord Milner a final warning to stop this nonsense. If he posts one more time in that thread on his talk page (which is on my watchlist) without formally requesting unblocking, I'll revoke TPA. Deor (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, who brags about their college credits as if that means anything? This guy is full of himself.

Anyway, they've continued to rant without following the instructions for requesting an unblock, so I'd say it's revoke TPA time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

[256].

he has posted multiple times in the last 3ish hours, all of the same type of CIR/IDHT/uncivil ranting. certainly needs TPA revoked at this point ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

TPA yanked. Enough rope has been given. If it was just about the content, more words could have been exchanged in an appropriate area. However, his attitude to other editors who have called out his prior behaviour and the non-apology in his dismissive replies have clearly demonstrated that his lack of awareness of the etiquette required of an editor. – robertsky (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Robertsky. It happens that I was offline during his latest spate, or I would have done the yanking myself. Deor (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like he's drunk. EEng 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was away too. Otherwise would have followed up earlier as well. – robertsky (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Ownership at 2023 NFL season

There has been significant ownership of content on 2023 NFL season. Frank Anchor persistently removed any mention on the notable events of the fact that week 14 had two games at 0-0 at halftime for the first time since 1988 and Vikings-Raiders was the first 3-0 game since 2007. Then, they keep even more trivial aspects on, like Travis Kelce only having the 4th most receptions by a tight end. Can someone step in here? 69.118.230.235 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is based on long-standing process of not including highly trivial and minor details, such as "for the first time since 2007 (a stretch of only 16 years) there was a game with this exact final score." or "for the first time since 1988, there were two games with this exact score at halftime." Whereas it has always been considered appropriate to add when a man advances within the top ten spots of a stats list. I'm not saying this is right, but it is how it has been, and is always open to constructive dialogue. Unfortunately the anonymous IP made no effort to seek clarification on the talk page, instead making a WP:POINT (diff) and taking this to ANI.Frank Anchor 13:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Persistently? I'm only seeing the one revert that I would have also reverted if I got there first. It's cherry picked and we wouldn't add "this didn't happen by half time in two separate games" to records, that's clear WP:FANCRUFT. Then you spitefully removed a whole bunch of sourced content, which I actually reverted. Also, this isn't where the content dispute should have been taken, it should have gone to Talk:2023 NFL season. If you don't like the standards for inclusion that Frank Anchor mentioned, perhaps consider proposing different inclusion criteria at WT:NFL. Most of the NFL season article editors are a part of the project and they will likely have thoughts on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been a few other instances where I removed similar content posted by other users/IP's (most recently on February 11). This could possibly be the same person who added the content yesterday. Frank Anchor 14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's Showtime

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

---

119.94.170.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) RevinCBHatol (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you need us to do to this? We can't read your mind, so unless you explain what you need we can't do anything. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look. Philippine IP on the article It's Showtime (Philippine TV program), all edits have been reverted. Support a IP block and some form of protection on the article. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, article semi'd for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought for a moment that we were back on the NYC subways. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit war about to begin at Sporting CP

A. Landmesser (talk · contribs) is about to start an edit war at Sporting CP because user doesn't like "Sporting Lisbon", despite being sourced. The article has been protected before because of that. User is ignoring reliable sources and several discussions at the article's talk page. SLBedit (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit war has begun, it was too obvious. I tried to avoid it but A. Landmesser (talk · contribs) didn't care. SLBedit (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, leaving aside who's in the right here, you could have avoided it by not reverting. See the three-revert rule. It's not obvious your edits fall into any relevant exception, and so you've both fallen afoul of it. Local Variable (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:ANEW.

Secondly, you yourself are edit warring. You might have exactly one last chance to back down before an admin gives you both a time-out for going well beyond WP:3RR. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A. Landmesser is now attacking me. SLBedit (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of blocks all around I've fully protected the article. Work it out on the talkpage. I'll look at everybody's conduct. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither of you has done yourself much credit - both warned. Work it out on the talkpage, without accusations or personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus possible between me and that user – especially since they have bias towards me. We need users that have nothing to do with Sporting Lisbon or Portuguese football, users with fresh eyes on the subject. SLBedit (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Blatant Conflict of interest (COI) editing: even the source SLBedit insists to add is about a degrading episode in the history of Sporting CP. Always the same modus operandi that people are starting to notice. Others left Wikipedia for good because of editors like him. The most balanced and equitable way to solve the issue is to properly explain the issues with the use of "Sporting Lisbon" without erasing it from the lead. A. Landmesser (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. Pushing POV and advocacy to the lead isn't a balanced or equitable way to solve the issue. There is already a section explaining "Sporting Lisbon". Why do you need to write "wrong" or "innacurate" to the lead? SLBedit (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Then I'll convert the protection to longer partial blocks for both of you, so that less argumentative editors can work on the article constructively. Any more personal attacks or unsupprted aspersions, and both of you will recieve siteblocks. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: fair enough. But will do you something about A. Landmesser copy-pasting personal attacks and lies? Do you realize other users/IP addresses will try to remove "Sporting Lisbon" from Sporting Lisbon article? That's what have they done over the past few YEARS. SLBedit (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Lies"? What diud I just say about personal attacks from either of you? Walk away. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, lies, e.g. "Always the same modus operandi that people are starting to notice but nobody cares. Others left Wikipedia for good because of editors like you". User copy-pasted that into edit summaries and talk page. And now user called me a "boy" in the talk page. Will you take action, or do I have to remove that? SLBedit (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the personal attack. SLBedit (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on editing other user's comments in talkspace. I might also suggest you please drop the stick. edit Acroterion has been very patient with you. Dropping the shovel is almost certainly your best move unless you genuinely have evidence of personal attacks that go beyond snide remarks. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "drop the stick" mean? How can I tell it's only a snide remark and not an insult? I can't see A. Landmesser's emotions. SLBedit (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It means to avoid adding fuel to the fire and carefully walk away from the situation without aggravating it even more. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK is an old essay which has entered common slang on the english wikipedia. Dropping the stick, putting down the shovel, and other various phrases are thrown around generally to indicate that a discussion has reached its conclusion, or soured, and that trying to pursue it further is not going to accomplish anything positive for anyone involved. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised you both decided to commit to edit warring one another. Start acting professionally and snap out of this 'im telling' attitude and start treating one another as humans and equals with good faith in mind. That is my prescription for this situation. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I, as someone without any connection to Portuguese football (indeed, the amount of time I have spent in the country would be measured in days and not weeks), have an opinion about the content dispute, but am not prepared to express it while the edit-warriors dominate the discussion. Just block them, at least from the talk page, so that reasonable people can get a word in edgeways. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I will just say that User:A. Landmesser's edits are nonsensical, as the club is commonly known as "Sporting Lisbon" in the Anglosphere, even if that is not its official name. Indeed, the BBC still refers to them by that name as opposed to Sporting CP [257]. It is therefore completely correct to include it in the lead. I suggest that when the protection expires they do not revert again, as that may well result in a block. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Continual edit warring patterns from Cortador

Today two separate articles underwent full protection because of edit warring, Republican Party (United States) (a designated contentious topic) and then Ginni Thomas (a BLP). In both instances the edit warring involved Cortador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

This isn't even close to the first time Cortador has engaged in edit warring. They've been blocked for it twice, they've had numerous other edit warring notifications on their talk page[258][259][260][261][262] (this last one was posted by me but removed by Cortador with a personal attack. Talking of personal attacks, they've had to be warned about that in separate instances before, too).

Since the last time they were blocked they've stopped outright violating 3RR - however, I am noticing a continual pattern of edit warring (and belligerence), regardless. I'd urge anyone reading to go onto their talk page and CTRL+F "edit war" (and that doesn't include the warnings they've removed).

Some editors might be more prone to edit warring, I understand that, but given that two different articles had to undergo full protection in one day because of this user, one of them being one of the most significant political articles on the whole site (designated a contentious topic), I feel the need to bring it here, as it's now become disruptive. Edit warring warnings clearly do not work. Blocks only seem to stop them outright violating 3RR, so perhaps a community-imposed 1RR restriction is in order - or some other kind of restriction. — Czello ^(music) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly the warnings and blocks aren't working. I suggest a topic ban from the topic or 1RR restriction. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles were locked because editors kept doing edits against talk page consensus. The GOP article was in fact locked after a revert from Czello themselves. Czello has a habit of making false accusation e.g in the second linked message they attempted to pass off a original addition as a revert and claim that as an 3RR violation, which has happened more than once. Other false claims include sockpuppetry (see here), were Czello also neglected to tag me. Czello has also admitted to stalking me (see here), and their primary interest appears to be doing self-appointed Wikipedia policing rather than improving the site. Cortador (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if they were edits against consensus (which is clearly untrue in both cases given that discussions are ongoing), that doesn't excuse edit warring which has now resulted in two articles being fully protected – a single revert from me to restore the WP:QUO version isn't what caused that.

As for the second link I included – well, if your defence is "it was 3 reverts actually not 4", well that's still not a great look. It's still edit warring, which is what this is about. Edit warring isn't confined to bright-line 3RR violations.

The rest of your comment isn't about the edit warring, and seems to be deflection, but since you mentioned it – the sockpuppetry investigation isn't a "false accusation", any more than any other SPI that finds nothing is. There's no obligation to tag a user in an SPI. Finally I have never admitted to stalking you, you said that. I said that your talk page was on my watch list from the several previous times I've had to notify you about 3RR.

Can you address the matter at hand please – that being that you have a long-term habit of edit warring? — Czello ^(music) 08:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the pages weren't even locked after my edits, but after those of other editors, one of them being you.

If you had a case for edit warring, you could have made that instead of fabricating a 3RR - which also wasn't the only time that happened.

The SPI does indeed to require to notify the accused editor, though in the light of your behaviour, it doesn't look good.

The "several previous times" were a single instance of the aforementioned 3RR case that wasn't actually one. I suggest you cease fabricating stuff like this. Cortador (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were locked after your edits - they were edit wars you were involved in (3 reverts in both instances, to my count), regardless of whether your edits were literally the final before it was locked. You can deflect and say others were invovled here (and one single revert does not an edit war make), but ultimately the pattern of edit warring is what I'm raising here.

The SPI does indeed to require to notify the accused editor No, it literally does not. Per the guidelines, Notification isn’t mandatory.

And yes, by the time I said I had your talk page on my watchlist, I had posted there twice about edit warring.[263][264] I'm really not sure what your point is, here - other than drawing attention to the fact that you've received multiple notifications about EW. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You were likewise involved there, which you keep omitting.

I've already stated why trying to hide the sockpuppetry accusation looks bad in light of your behaviour.

EW notifications can be issued by anyone and don't mean anything by themselves - especially when they are based on false accusations. Cortador (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You mean my single revert? Yes, I reverted to WP:QUO, as it should be maintained during a dispute. I didn't omit it, I said one revert does not an edit war make. You're once again dodging your edit warring, which yesterday resulted in two major articles being locked down.

And no, the EW notifications weren't "false accusations". If you want to relive a conversation from over a year ago, you were edit warring. I hope you realise that EW isn't confined to 3RR violations?

You seem to be trying very hard to deflect and talk about me – so let's get to the point. Do you believe that you have an issue with edit warring? — Czello ^(music) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, at least you actually admit that you participated as well.

The accusation of 3RR was and remains false, and if over a year ago was too long ago (or whatever you want to imply with that), you shouldn't have brought this up.

You keep making up things - I again suggested you stop thins behaviour. Cortador (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, ok, you both have said your piece. This back-and-forth isn't accomplishing anything. Here's what I'm seeing:

• There very obviously was edit warring going on at both articles
• Cortador was clearly the worst offender at both articles
• I've personally never found it useful to argue over whether 3RR is breached, that is simply one specific application of ther edit warring policy. It is entirely possible to be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether 3RR is breached.
• I'm assuming that @El C:made a deliberate choice to protect rather than to block eveyone involved in the edit war, which by definition always includes at least two people, so my suggestion would be that both parties reflect on what edit warring accomplishes (nothing) and to not engage it again once the relevant protections have expired.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, because there's like 7 of em. El_C 02:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a 1RR restriction, enforced or voluntary, is warranted. I would oppose a Tban as more than is needed to address the problem (disclaimer: involved). The long term problem is edit warring without crossing the 3RR limit, especially in cases when ONUS/QUO don't support the change Cortador is pushing. They were just warned by an admin after walking to the 3RR limit on two separate articles. This isn't a case of two editors reverting to the limit. At the GOP article they reverted 3 different editors to push a change. At the Thomas article they reverted two editors (again 3 total reverts). Only after reaching the 3RR bright line did they move to the talk page which is where these disputes should have been after the first revert. A Tban is unnecessary as their talk page comments are generally CIVIL though terse. As Czello has shown, this isn't a one day problem. It's a long term pattern that short blocks haven't addressed. A 1RR limit, voluntary or enforced, would ensure they can continue to voice their views on topics they are clearly interested in while avoiding the specific edit warring issue. Springee (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll do 1RR for 6 months. El_C 02:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:1RR for the GOP page ^{(see edit notice)}, that is, not Cortador. Sorry, I'm writing (and reading) in haste, but to be clear, I was unaware of this thread at the time when I had encountered the protection request for it at RfPP, and remained unaware of it until pinged here today. Anyway, while I still think page-level 1RR for the GOP page makes sense, due to so many editors' involvement, I did miss Cortador also being featured, and even more prominently, in the edit war @Ginni Thomas. So I p-blocked them from it ^(diff) for one month ^{(well, eventually )} and removed the protection from that page ^(diff). I logged the 1RR for the GOP page ^{(log entry)}, but as for making this an WP:AP2 sanction for Cortador, specifically, I leave that to someone else as I am unfamiliar with their background, and yet to have had a chance to review much due to time constraints. As such, any admin should feel free to adjust or add to any of my actions (including AE) as they see fit. I need not be consulted or even notified. Thanks everyone for your patience and sorry again for my unavailability at present. El_C 05:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd still advocate for a 1RR restriction on Cortador themself, however. The P-block is justified, but they've received blocks before and clearly the edit warring hasn't improved. (I realise El C said they'd leave that to someone else -- so this message is really for anyone else who picks this up.)

I agree with Springee that a T-ban isn't appropriate. Cortador has a lot of constructive edits in this topic area (though I'd say there's a significant WP:INSCRUTABLE issue when it comes to right-wing politics). Really the issue is the long-term edit warring. — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:MonsterMash51 repeatedly introducing material contrary to consensus, abusing edit summaries

User:MonsterMash51 has repeatedly been adding material to Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas that is contrary to consensus established in the talk page of § Restore article content. MonsterMash51 previously received a page-block for violations of the 3RR, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive481 § User:MonsterMash51 reported by User:MicrobiologyMarcus (Result: Blocked 36 hours). MonsterMash51 then returned to adding the same content: Special:Diff/1221583820.

I suggested MonsterMash51 self-revert to establish consensus for wording on the talk page (Special:Diff/1221590608) which fell on deaf ears. Since then, MonsterMash51 was reverted before re-adding again at Special:Diff/1221590964. When I left in my edit summary on my revert Non-neutral description and unestablished fringe theory on Special:Diff/1221592969, MonsterMash51 used the same edit summary in removing other content Special:Diff/1221614334 and the again when blanking large amounts of content at Special:Diff/1221614373.

When the page was restored again by User:ObserveOwl at Special:Diff/1221614658 with the edit summary Please provide a source that says it is a fringe theory. looks all reliably sourced, MonsterMash51 then added content again by mimicing ObserveOwl's edit summary on Special:Diff/1221614971.

Since his page-block has expired, MonsterMash51 has, in my opinion given the above, has taken to disruptive editing practices and has not responded to attempts on their talk page of any resolution, see User talk:MonsterMash51.

Thanks for your attention in the matter, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Topic Ban from AP2 contentious issues topic broadly construed If this user took a short-term block and then went right back to edit warring the same content back in then they probably should be invited to take a longer break from things to do with American politics. Simonm223 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support topic ban on WP:CT/AP: this is clearly disruptive, and any argument of good faith was lost on the blank of Special:Diff/1221614373. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the edit history shows the blatant hypocracy on display by MicroBiologyMarcus. It's perfectly fine to unilaterally revert content I added as being "biased" or "poorly sourced" without consensus and then when I do it to similar content, it can be restored no problem. And then when I restore my own edits, he runs to adminstrators to try to get me banned.

It's amazing that adding such words as "along party lines" can be seen as biased when it applies to an all Democrat vote, but the same exact words used earlier in the article to apply to all Republican vote. It's almost as if we don't want to say that Democrats could possibly vote for partisan reasons while suggesting that Republicans do.

Also, I did take the discussion on the talk page and modified the "falsely" to "alleged" to be more neutral as requested.

Also, unilaterality declaring C-SPAN an unreliable source is ridiculous. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

C-Span is generally a primary source which, per WP:PRIMARY is, at best, less than ideal. Simonm223 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

However, also, there is no less than three editors on that page, excluding myself, who have reverted your inclusion. So it's pretty clear who is edit-warring here. Simonm223 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would object to the characterization that I "[ran] to administrators to try to get [them] banned" when any attempt to discuss this with MonsterMash51 on their talk-page by myself and others went ignored, and MonsterMash51 is ignoring other's reverts and talk page consensus. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing that MonsterMash51 is acting in good faith here. They waited a week to add content that had been reverted by several different editors, including myself. After the original ban, they attempted a talk page discussion, but seem to be ignoring it today. After my initial revert today, they did remove one of their most objectionable changes but have continued their disruptive editing otherwise. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

well yanno, as far as MicrobiologyMarcus editing in bad faith is concerned, I feel a need to point out that he just now cheerfully and without prompting unprodded on of his AfD nominations that he was kinda wrong about -- it kinda required prior knowledge of Central California -- and gave me a barnstar to boot, so I pretty much disagree with your premise that he is operating from ego or bad faith. Also, he seems to not be American so he's probably not in a conspiracy with the Democrats. Elinruby (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

M.A.LasTroniN910 adding copyrighted material to articles past last warning

user:M.A.LasTroniN910 came across their edit here and noticed it added copyrighted material. I went to warn them, and saw they'd been warned about copyright violations numerous times before on their talk page. Despite assuranced at their last ANI thread that they are "fully aware of copyright law", they don't seem to be. A block may be warranted before they do even more damage. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that I violated copyright?

Because I only add the reception section and several resources for North American and French licenses,

and the link that you doubt i

didn't put it in the article, and as for the plot, I didn't put it in, please check the article thoroughly before you accuse me because this is a misunderstanding and I'm confused

Just because I made mistake in the past, don't think I will always do it. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 05:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right- you didn't copy the paragraph beginning "Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint has reigned supreme as one of the top ten action series and the biggest fantasy success of the digital comic platform Webtoon with over 340 million views and 3.5 million subscribers." from the article I linked. You copied it from the article you linked, here. The phrase likely first appeared in a press release, or one of the sites copied the other. Do you understand why this is a copyright violation? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I violated and did not rewrite the text because I thought the sentence should be like this since I'm not a native English speaker

However, from now on, I will check and rewrite all my edits, and now if you think it's good to block me, I have no complaints.

Thank you for alerting me. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

FlapjackRulez adding copyright material after multiple warnings

user:FlapjackRulez At copy patrol, I saw [this] edit which added the plot summary, apparently from the movie's own promotional material. When I went to warn them, I saw they'd been warned multiple times for copyright-related issues, including multiple G12'ed articles. Given the fact they have never responded, or apparently stopped inserting copyrighted material, this is an issue which an admin needs to address. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: Which edit? – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to link the edit. It's this one], which I have edited the above post to include a link to. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you please show the source that's allegedly plagiarized? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sure! It appears to have been taken from the movie's promotional material- you can see the plot summary is the same as these commercial listings. [[265]] or [[266]]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User Gilberatalessandro054 edit warring copyrighted material into article

Gilberatalessandro054 (talk · contribs). For the past hour or so, this user has been repeated inserting copyrighted material, seemingly from here, into the Pattimura article. I and another user have been reverting them, and asking for a revdel, but they keep doing it. Oh, as I write this, they've done it again. A page protection or a block may be in order. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Their tendentious style and edit summaries at this and related articles are strongly reminiscent of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth6282/Archive. Wikishovel (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor has also resumed tagging their major edits as minor, again despite warnings at their user talk: [267], [268], [269], [270]. Wikishovel (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not even considering repeated creation of 'battles' inside Indonesian articles where there are no known sources for the level of detail of specific battles. The language being used in response to notifications is quite confusing also. I am not sure whether there is a distinct problem of misunderstanding some of the instructions or whether the replies are adequately coherent... JarrahTree 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the continued edit war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pattimura&action=history and ignoring warnings constitutes admin action ASAP JarrahTree 11:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Feeling generous, I indef partially blocked them from that article. Any further copyvios will result in a full indef. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Bit busy right now, but there has been a significant rise in very odd edits to Indonesian-related war articles in the past 24 hours, some of which I have reverted (e.g blanking sections, changing participants lists). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As at least one checkuser has come to this particular incident, the editing pattern of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Based_history4668 should be of concern. JarrahTree 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Arslansumra7 repeatedly re-inserting copyright material

Arslansumra7 has repeatedly added content copied from: https://petsmania.info/labrador-retriever-all-about-the-dog-breed/ to Labrador Retriever. I've posted two talk page warnings which have fallen on deaf ears.

Apologies if this is the wrong area to report such behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that copyvio, Traumnovelle, for requesting revdeletion (now done) and for leaving a warning on the user's talk. I believe that's all we need to do for now – it's not uncommon for new editors to make these mistakes, and we'd normally only bring them to this board if they persist after several warnings. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The user did it again (twice more, in fact), now indeffed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote this I presumed they would keep repeatedly re-inserting it given how quickly they re-added the content and assumed a block would stop any further violations until they acknowledge they have read the copyright policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive mainspace moves per Robert27768

The user Robert27768 is a new user who tried to move a article from draftspace to mainspace using tactics which see to match UPE activity. The article was moved bak due to the checks and balances of wiki admins, but the user remains and in all likeness try again. Requesting review of user. Thank you. Geraldine Aino (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a particular sock farm which uses deceptive, false names in edit summaries (like here). I'm trying to track down which one it is. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's these fine folks. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Report filed at relavent SPI, requested checkuser to clear out more accounts. Thanks 57.140.16.48. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

Jeffersonian111 (talk · contribs)

I have blocked this editor after a sudden switch to vandalism. Can someone with the right goggles take a peek, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've checked, and believe you are correct. But the good news is it should be fairly easy to see if/when they've regained access to their account – just ping a CU. – bradv 16:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

May not be compromised, as they similarly vandalized (and self-reverted 2 minutes later) the same article as they did today on April 12th. Waxworker (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What about 6 November 2023‎? Followed by a self-revert and 2 IPs doing the same vandalism. – 143.208.236.229 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• You say "compromised" like it's a bad thing. I thought compromise was an important part of the consensus process. EEng 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's also a key element of kompromat, which is less good. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hang on, EEng--while you're here, I'll just grab you your Groan-Inducing Pun of the Month Badge. For those unfamiliar with Eeng's accomplishments in this field, this is his 187th consecutive win. Actually, we used to have a trophy, but he ran out of shelf space. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  FTR, I auctioned them all off to pay for the deworming of wretched children in some developing country. So it's been for a good cause. EEng 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually saw edits from this user while doing recent changes patrol. It came up on my feed with a high ORES score so I checked it out, and this user added an inappropriate image into the article. I immediately clicked rollback and given the context of the edit, I decided to skip the level 1 warning and went straight to level 2. Then, I realized, this account has made 300+ constructive edits in the past and this really isn't normal. Then this user repeated that same edit and I was just about to revert it with the edit summary "Possible compromised account??" but then it was already reverted. Does seem like an compromised account but I also find it quite unusual that this user, like Waxworker and the IP mentioned above, that this user also vandalized other pages like this and immediately self reverted, and this exact same page here, both in a similar way to what they did. Bradv already CUed this account and confirmed it is compromised so I will accept that. User3749 (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

181.117.225.154

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

---

Some kind words ❤️ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

IPs related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07

• 2A02:587:428B:5278:1421:CF3C:227D:32E2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There is a connection with the blocked ip range 2A02:85F:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40. Apart from the nationality related editing they make their presence obvious by returning to the same article in el.wiki to perform a reversion (see el:Doja Cat, history). Ah3kal (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing crosswiki vandalism by User:188.163.80.19

I'm tied up right now, but could someone please look through the contributions of 188.163.80.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? If I'm reading things correctly, they've been introducing misinformation about paintings, primarily by Van Gogh, across multiple wikis (global contributions). Thank you! - Eureka Lott 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted their Van Gogh edits. Looks like every edit they have ever made on enWiki has been reverted for lacking sources... ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, mike_gigs. I had some time and reverted the vandalism on Commons, Wikidata, and the French and Italian Wikipedias. I didn't attempt to undo the edits on the Ukrainian or Russian Wikipedias, because I don't understand those languages.

I fear this may be a deeper issue, though, with vandalism going much further back, because it looks like this user was also editing disruptively from 188.163.80.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 188.163.83.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There could be more addresses that I haven't spotted. Yuck. - Eureka Lott 01:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

sephora page

the page for sephora has been vandalized, and I can't revert it since the page uses a blacklisted website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaismagorm (talk • contribs) 16:09 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The recent vandalism to Sephora has been reverted. The article is not protected. Which website is blacklisted? Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I once did some construction work in a Sephora store in San Francisco. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing recent appears to be blacklisted. I reverted back to when a bunch of promotional material was present- and self reverted-, but none of the refs were blacklisted there either. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Referenceforbusiness.com was giving a blacklist error, I can confirm that also happened to me. Not sure if it’s supposed to be or not. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It was added in 2019 at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019#Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.) as one of several sites operated by Advameg which is "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP, although the reason is copyright, not reliability - it is probably copied from (or includes content from) the International Directory of Company Histories but doesn't mention it anywhere. There are still 475 articles citing this as a source. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

SBL hits are logged, but they aren't in the default Special:Log view. Any logged-in user can still view the spam blacklist log. Though nowadays there's also a "blocked domains hit log" so you need to check two places. Also remember that it's possible to get around either restriction with WP:ROLLBACK (not Twinkle's "rollback"), though of course it's always polite to remove the link afterwards. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh, Special:Log/abusefilterblockeddomainhit can be accessed as an IP, neat. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Though apparently it was going to be made user-only ASAP in July of last year: gerrit:933605 – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks Gaismagorm (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Theoreticalmawi

Theoreticalmawi (talk · contribs) should be blocked permanently as WP:NOTHERE. Someone who claims that there are no "sources to princely titles after the abolishment of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1866"[271] flies in the face of the BBC, Der Spiegel, Voice of America, France 24, Sydney Morning Herald, Hello, Hola, MSN, Tatler, Bridgeman, Business Insider, The List, Town and Country, The Independent, People, Monaco Life, NDTV, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, Deseret News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Vogue, Herald Sun and many others.. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So, you want a newish user with under 400 edits permanantly blocked because they made one edit you don't agree with? Is that right or did you have more to say? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The account is over 4 years old. And it's more than one edit. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The user did not in that edit claim that there are no "sources to princely titles after the abolishment of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1866", but only that you had not provided sources. Did you link the wrong diff here? If that user did not make the claim anywhere then why should we have an administrator who tells such lies? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've obviously provided sources. DrKay (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you did (I haven't checked) but there is a big difference between "there are no sources" and "you have not provided sources". Why did you misrepresent this content dispute as a behavioural dispute in this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Phil entirely. This is a minor content dispute at best, you absolutely have not shown cause for any type of sanction, let alone an indef block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"why should we have an administrator who tells such lies" and "I haven't checked" does not build confidence in the response. Responses should be civil and informed by examining the issue. DrKay (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on you to make your case, with supporting evidence. You have not done that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What on Earth is wrong with those statements? The first is a valid question which you only quoted the second half of, and the second is true, as there was no need to check to know that you are avoiding my questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that while it shouldn't happen in practice we all know that editors at ANI sometimes don't properly check diffs especially from experienced editors. So if an experienced editor incorrectly claims a diff shows something it doesn't, this is quite problematic. Not to mention it's effectively a personal attack to falsely claim an editor did something they did not do, and that is a blockable offence. I don't think this is quite WP:boomerang territory, but definitely so far the only clear problem is claiming the editor did something they didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided answering the question "why should we have an administrator who tells such lies?" per the usual process of avoiding responding to incivility. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

DrKay, editors are sometimes going to push your buttons because you're an admin. It's expected that you let small things just roll off, like water on a duck. It is also expected that your behavioral claims about others aren't full of hyperbole. I don't see anything actionable here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal edit warring at Naseem Hamed

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni, and is slow-edit warring over it. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the relevant BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO.

After initially using an entertainment site as a source, they have now brought up another entertainment site which labels him as such, but the sole inclusion of this fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as there are numerous RS—of actual boxing expertise—correctly labelling him as solely British: "Few British boxers", "first British fighter", "British boxing legend", "British fighter's career". All the while, plenty of reverts since mid-March with hardly any engagement in discussion at the article talk page: [272], [273], [274], [275]

I briefly considered DR, but believe it is unnecessary because rather than a content dispute, this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines, and refusing to engage in discussion. I've arrived here on the suggestion of ANI, as there are also conduct issues at hand, as well as the user's persistent habit of not using sources correctly or misinterpreting them, which has garnered several warnings by other experienced users. A couple of recent examples of them not quite getting how things work: [276], [277], [278]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ia agree there is a slow-motion edit war going on, but of course it is literally impossible for only one person to edit war. For now I have protected the page from editing for a week, hopefully that will be enough to get some consensus on the issue. For the record I don't think the MOS, generally, in "enforcable" on such things, so a local consensus is a better metric. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Disappointing. I'll try WP:BLPN next. With AGF in mind, I deem User:ActionHeroesAreReal to be a difficult editor, and further talk page discussion is unlikely to get far based on their conduct. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Applying protection in these situations is, to my mind anyway, a sort of "warning shot" that if the behavior that led to the protection recurs after it expires, blocks will follow. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Meda Keeling

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

---

Meda Keeling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Meda Keeling has been on a revert campaign. Many of their reverts are down right wrong and they have been issuing only warnings for helpful edits. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See their talk page for more evidence and details. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Several editors (including me) have posted to Meda Keeling's talk about their incorrect warnings to other editors, however they have not continued to edit since we posted. No response on their talk so I don't know if they understand that their reverts and warnings are wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Meda Keeling shows that new account Meda Keeling did 72 edits in 41 minutes. The edits consisted of reverting random edits and posting warning notices on user talk pages of people they revert. The reverts appear to be clueless - for example this one deleted the end of a citation template and the </ref> at the end of a citation.

I think the purpose of the reverts and warning is to game the system to get the required number of edits for a desired status. I think we can safely assume that the account-holder has had previous accounts, so a check-user would be nice.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They're actually not "new"; they registered in 2017 and just started editing today. So, yes, I think a sleeper check would be in order. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be on a mission as well, like they have past disputes. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Endorse {{checkuser needed}}. Tempted to just WP:CIR block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Agusmagni

This user nominated multiple TV shows and tried to delete them for a reason that seems to be similar to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, when there are plenty of sources. Also, they mentioned their PROD notice being removed twice, whereas any editor may remove a PROD if they object to deletion, and the deletion reason was not valid.

It is possible that this account could be a Single-purpose account whose purpose is to delete television show articles. They joke about starting an edit war, which could mean that they are possibly WP:NOTHERE (1).

Thank you. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 23:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Agusmagni for 48 hours with a stern warning to refrain from disruptive editing at AfD once the block expires. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverts with misleading summaries and no explanation

User McWeenus (talk · contribs) is insistent on reverting people's edits with an additional added or removed space (therefore isn't tagged as a revert/undo) and with a summary that most times disguises the fact it was a revert. Every edit of theirs has been a disguised revert, with either a misleading summary or no summary, and no explanation of why they reverted.
I warned them 3 times for misleading summaries (lvl 2, 3 and a botched 4 which they acknowledged by answering at my previous IP's talk page).
Timeline:

1. "Adding content with sources" - diff - proof it was a revert - reverted my clean-up of that page with no explanation
2. no summary - diff - proof - reverted the IP's self-revert with no explanation, I mistook this as unsourced, but it was actually a duplicate and part of the lede, that their disguised revert restored
3. "Adding content" - diff - proof - reverted the IP's dubious changes (I warned them at this point after reverting the first 2 edits)
4. "Adding content" - diff - proof - reverted the IP's unexplained removal of the '2009 NFL Draft selections' section + section shuffling/renaming (I didn't revert this, but warned them again, they deleted the warnings)
5. "Adding content with sources" - diff - proof - reverted the IP's possibly constructive removal

I didn't revert the last one either, but warned them, again, to which they responded on my talk page (diff) with: "My edit summaries are not inaccurate in the slightest. I am indeed adding content to articles. Please refrain from further harassment at my talk page".
They then did other reverts which didn't restore content, which I let be, and finally have once again restored a section while being misleading and without explaining why:
- "Adding a section" - diff - proof it was a revert - the IP had offered an explanation for their removal.
Please help stop their disruptive behaviour, thank you. *Also maybe check if they are a sock, as this adding + removing spaces so it's not tagged undo/manual revert is definitely intentional. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikiindiauser

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

Need help taking a look at Wikiindiauser's edits. The issues are as follows:

• Nearly every contribution is marked as minor edit, while adding as much as 19,034 bytes.
• The user is advocating for a political party, SO for that peoples have to vote one and only BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) in 2024 Indian general election. Violation of wp:PROMO/WP:NPOV.
• The user might have violated wp:copyvio policy, with this edit which could be from here. Exact phrases match.
• In edit summaries user writes things like By the order of Higher Authority of Board of Admission, which if true (I doubt that) is a wp:COI edit.
• User continuously adds unsourced material and occasionally will cite another Wikipedia article which is against the WP:WINARS guidelines.

Would be great if someone can take a look at the users contributions, and, at minimum, remove any possible COPYVIO. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Most of their 69 edits aren't an improvement anyway, so I've blocked them until they explain themselves. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

IP disruption

IP editor 95.151.19.213/95.151.19.128 has added the same list of unsourced genres (Diff 1, 2, and 3) to Strong (Romy song) three times in recent weeks despite repeat warnings/reverts (including this talk page warning). Editor has a couple dozen edits between both IPs, most of which have been reverted for similar reasons, also leading to a second talk page warning here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE disruption

Bharatian Mapping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bharatian Mapping is engaging in edit warring to promote his absurd views for 3 days now despite the warnings. Kindly block. Orientls (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup clearly WP:NOTHERE.CycoMa1 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/37631579... sometimes the edit filter makes people look better than they are by preventing their attack nonsense. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked user as WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)