Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it.Drmies (talk)21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and yourresponse has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
Perhaps if you suppliedevidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributorand are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left apossible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.)Schazjmd(talk)16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned thatUser:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Wikipedia’s guidelines.
You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost,here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to.81.2.123.64 (talk)17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidenceat all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it.81.2.123.64 (talk)17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, underWP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion.Simonm223 (talk)18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Wikipedia and is dismissing my concerns.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's editsare problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk)18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Wikipedia policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing.LizRead!Talk!19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems that she is not new to Wikipedia and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ?𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks againstUser:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Wikipedia. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so.BusterD (talk)12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.)BusterD (talk)12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence.Remsense ‥ 论13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not engaged in paid activities on Wikipedia, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Wikipedia vs. ANI case.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above.Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here.Remsense ‥ 论13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice.Remsense ‥ 论13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Wikipedia with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having beenpatrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior.Remsense ‥ 论12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
You can't both criticize someone forlack[ing] understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those relatedWP:GNG andWP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Wikipedia page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfDprocess but notcriteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling.Simonm223 (talk)13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need todrop the stick.Remsense ‥ 论13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them.BusterD (talk)14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future.Simonm223 (talk)14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Wikipedia’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
S-Aura, how did you make the determinationUser:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation ofWP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Wikipedia article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it.BusterD (talk)15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly).BusterD (talk)15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences.BusterD (talk)15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks.CFA15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier.Remsense ‥ 论17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks andVESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances.EF515:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse.Daniel (talk)17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJrStudios The Wikipedian (talk •contribs)15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds alot like the same edit warrer I dealt with onRedbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person. I've asked RFPP to intervene.wizzito |say hello!21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TheUser talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike.CMD (talk)01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is thatMoroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking attheir last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city ofAzerbaijan,Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you?Nuritae331 (talk)17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them.Moroike (talk)21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This @GheusIs making disruptive edits on different pages such as he made atDaily Dunya.He is placing deletion tags and is notability tags. The article is already has confirmed notability.This user did not stoped at this point he remove my warning from his talk page also and is removing content from other pages.I think please do some actionBlirth (talk)03:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
A quick cursory check seems to indicate that he is not being disruptive, but if anything editing contentiously but that is not prohibited. Looking at his AfD nominations, most of them are correct and consensus agrees with deleting or redirecting, instead of keeping most of the time -- although he does not get it correct every time. Rather it looks like you disagree, and when you brought it to his talk page once[16] he disregarded and deleted it asserting that you were the vandal[17]. It appears that he has a list of websites[18] that he considers promotional and likely is going about cleaning those up. Looking at Daily Dunya specifically, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with placing a AfD or Notability tags for this. Without looking into it much I would also question if this article meets GNG. Going beyond that article a quick look at his other edits also seem to be perhaps contentious but nothing that looks like vandalism, edit warring, or POV pushing. As such, this doesn't look like something for urgent admin intervention unless you have something more specific to reference.TiggerJay(talk)04:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had complained about a editor, in the Alba Party article talk section, who claimed totally wrongly that I had compared someone to Holocaust deniers, I complained about that personal attack, and of course there was a pile on by the other editors on me, making horrible statements about me, I wont say which, but it is there to see Now on the talk page, I stated, a thank you to someone who came on defended me, and then The Bushranger a wikipedia editor came on to claim I was the one who had defended me. I did not. I find this allegation insulting, and am sure there will now be wikipedia editors on, who have another pile on. Shame on the lies about me, I did not do that, and shame on the horrible things they say about people who try to edit. I dont mind if you ban me from editing, the behaviour from the wikipedia editors is just atrocious— Precedingunsigned comment added by2A00:23C4:B3AE:3D01:1470:CD88:4E1A:40F0 (talk •contribs)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'll pingUser:Drmies since they blocked the other accounts. They probably have a better sense of whether or not this is the same editor. Right now, it seems like a username similarity at least.LizRead!Talk!05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks tothis change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages inCategory:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" byUser:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you.Fram (talk)15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
"when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all.Fram (talk)15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion".Gonnym (talk)12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about didnot have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all.Fram (talk)16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This was discussed in detail onTemplate talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the|blp= and|living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin(MSGJ · talk)17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs.Fram (talk)17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumedCewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin(MSGJ · talk)18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue.Johnuniq (talk)03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Edits like these shouldalways be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded.GiantSnowman13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). UsersAnomieBOT,Cluebot III,Lowercase sigmabot III,Citation bot,et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing.(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue.Folly Mox (talk)15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, like, if only one of|blp= and|living=gets updated, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction.Folly Mox (talk)15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better?Fram (talk)16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". LikeSilver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran(talk)14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
Ongoing Disruption:
Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
Impact on the Community:
The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
These actions disregard Wikipedia's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
Request for Administrative Action:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Wikipedia's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.Rc2barrington (talk)08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed atWP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own.LizRead!Talk!09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I was going to post it atWP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters ofgeneral administrator interest.
If your post is about aspecific problem you have (adispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at theAdministrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate.Axad12 (talk)18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area.LizRead!Talk!19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire.Simonm223 (talk)20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFCRc2barrington (talk)12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated – Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence".EEng17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here[26] for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September.Rc2barrington (talk)16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rc2barrington's user page saysThis user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significantmajority of readers). It really is that simple.Axad12 (talk)19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. ButUser:Rc2barrington has provided none.
Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is hereTalk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.
Then there isTalk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.
So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.
For the past month,24.206.65.142(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information toBoeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official ([27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37]). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago ([38],[39]), includingbaseless claims thatFnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times ontheir talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. -ZLEAT\C19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. -ZLEAT\C20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF"[42][43], including GE Capital Aviation[44](the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News[45] (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F).24.206.65.142 (talk)21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Yourfailure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. -ZLEAT\C22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violatedWP:DOB atHuntley (singer), though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEdrianJustine (talk •contribs)22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over atTalk:Anti-Barney humor, a user by the name ofRyancasey93 requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them ([46]) that was added byTheLennyGriffinFan1994 ([47]). The talk page discussion was removed byAntiDionysius as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided tomake an edit request to cite their channel, which was declined byLizardJr8, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.
I then brought up concerns withWP:GNG andWP:COI with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner,creating a chain of replies and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded togo off on a tangent where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".
I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @Tamzin gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion.LizardJr8 (talk)21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New user replacing references with links to a lottery website
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nvygroup (talk·contribs) - noticed this on my watchlist, but this user with a promotional-sounding username has two edits, both of which replace otherwise legitimate references with links to what appears to be an Indonesian-language lottery site. No edit summaries either. Seems like a case ofWP:NOTHERE all considered.Departure– (talk)17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cokeandbread is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types:Jimmy Rex andHammy TV. Cokeandbread has refused (diff) to answer good-faith questions (diff,diff) about whether they are operating as a paid editor (responding to one of them withDon't threaten me) and posted a copyvio to Commons (diff). Despite warnings (diff), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (diff, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (diff,diff,diff), whiledemandingrespect in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page:The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine. (diff). Despite another warning (diff), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (diff), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well intoWP:NOTHERE territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here.Dclemens1971 (talk)23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question forWP:COIN or something.Nil Einne (talk)02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually see it's already been partly dealt with atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaekuma. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria.Nil Einne (talk)02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse ofByeon Woo-seok. Issues began when this editor1500+ bytes of sourced material. He did itagain andagain andagain for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.
I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. Theycreated 50+ new pages in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response tomy talk page messages trying to get an explanation(which I know they've seen since theyused my heading as a new subpage title)
I already suggested they use Test 2 Wikipedia for that purpose. It'd lead to a lot less clutter. I do find that either way they should probably say what they're trying to do. No one can help them if they don't communicate. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So far,197-Countryballs-World (talk·contribs) has made categories, started drafts, and attempted edits to articles, all of which make it clear they presently view Wikipedia a bit like their personal playground where they can build some sort of confused, redundant atlas. They have not responded whatsoever to talk messages, their categories at CfD, or their unsourced additions to live articles being reverted. If they can hear us, it seems they need to be gotten a hold of if they want to be a positive contributor—but it seems likely that they can't hear us.Remsense ‥ 论19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(NAC) Based on their username, I can reasonably confer that their edits likely pertain to theCountryball Fandom. Just a note, as I know we've historically had issues with Fandom editors crossing into Wikipedia. Feel free to remove if this message is innapropriate for ANI. :)EF520:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rude and unfestive language in my talk page
My esteemed editor collegueMarcus Markup just leftthis rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard.Vector legacy (2010) (talk)17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts:[49],[50],[51],[52]. They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative.Valenciano (talk)10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so aWP:NOTHERE block might be justified soon.Nil Einne (talk)Nil Einne (talk)12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
To that point, Vector legacy (2010)'s userpage consists of a tally of "EDIT WARS WON". I doubt this is serious, but the optics of it, combined with the above 3RR vio + bragging about the other party being on the line, is not good. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.)Oddwood (talk)04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Iacowriter has been warned in the past year to properly update numbers since he is not listening and can't do basic rounding of numbers and update the accessdate parameter. He has been warned enough times about this as seen by hisTalk page by me and other editors but still refuses to listen.
This has been going on for months now. At first I thought he was following the bad example of other editors who fail to update the box office gross consistently in all places it needs to be updated (article body, lead, infobox) but it goes beyond this. I tried asking nicely and repeatedly tried to explain the basics of how to round numbers (which is odd because he seems to be able to get it right in the Infobox most of the time, but frequently fails in the lead section and fails to update the article body). The problem is compounded by his failure to follow theWP:SIMPLE rules and provide a meaningful edit summary.
User:Betty Logan warned him politely(diff) October 27, 2024, but Iacowriter seems unwilling or unable* to correct his persistent mistakes and unfortunately it seems to be necessary to escalate this issue in some way. (*(diff) stated that he has autism) --109.79.69.146 (talk)16:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Trying is one thing, but you seem to keep ignoring it he advice you're getting from others. It looks like there have been multiple requests for you to stop rounding numbers incorrectly. Why have you refused to stop?Sergecross73msg me17:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Numerical rounding is a straightforward skill that should have been mastered at high-school. There are even online rounding apps available if it is something you struggle with. From what I recall of my interaction with this editor the issue of incorrect rounding is compounded by reverts (of editors who subsequently correct the rounding errors) and communication problems. For what it's worth I don't think this is deliberate vandalism or disruptive behavior (Iacowriter is apparently autistic), but the bottom line is that he is causing a lot of unnecessary clean-up work. Perhaps there are other aspects of Wikipedia he could work on that won't lead to the same problems?Betty Logan (talk)17:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Auxiliary213: You have failed to notifyGoodDay (talk·contribs) of this report, even though the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires you to do so. In fact, you have not even attempted to discuss the matter with them at all. Discussing reverts such as theirs is a requirement on this project; if nothing else, it allows you to understand why they thought that your information might not be appropriate for the page. Regards,User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me |Contributions).14:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You've only madeone edit to Wikipedia, since your arrival two days ago. Are you going to reportevery editor who reverts you, going forward?GoodDay (talk)14:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
No - you brought it here for admin attention, and I am an admin giving it attention. If you continue to be rude and disruptive because you don't like the answer then you will likely end up blocked.GiantSnowman14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP58.235.154.8 has made several edits without sourcing, for which they have been warned previously. (my apologies, I cannot send a link to the dif of the first warning as it was the first edit to their talk page) After continuing, they were reported to ANI, and banned for two months.[56]
Just over five hours after their ban expired, they resumed their vandalism,[57] for which I sent them two warnings on their talk page.[58] The first warning was for marking a flight of Starship as having occured in the List of Starship launches article,[59] followed by their previous addition of almost completely blank sections toStarship flight test 7.[60] This was over the course of 7 edits.
The edits that got them banned, as described by the user who filed the ANI report, was "Changing a month to the following month, for future planned events without reference". After taking a nearly month long break, they have resumed this.[61][62]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk·contribs) has displayed abominableWP:CIR,WP:BATTLEGROUND, incivility and other intolerable behavior as part of targeted edit warring onAzerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. Despite not having consensus to bloat the page withWP:NOTNEWS entries they proceeded toWP:IDNHT and had to be reverted several times at the same time engaging inWP:SHOUTING and wholesale removal and vandalism of citations ([63]) and casting aspersions on experienced well-meaning editors who tried to revert them ([64]).
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My edits were all perfectly reasonable. When other users suggested I should open a discussion on the talk pages I have done so.
The objections have become increasingly insane (I think that's a fair word to use in this instance), hence my frustration, for which I apologise.
For example claiming that adding an edit that had over 100 media articles written about it was "original research". How can that possibly be true?
Also being accused of POV, when in reality the people with a POV are clearly the people removing my edits without any justification.— Precedingunsigned comment added by77.98.111.156 (talk)21:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi 77.98! The issue here is that neither you nor I get to decide if any of these statements are controversial. We have to let reliable, independent, secondary sources decide that, and then we summarize and cite it. In fact, our policy oncontent about living persons is very strict, meaning that we typically require the most reputable of sources (and often multiple sources) when we're reporting on negative or controversial content.
An example isthis edit atMira Murati. CNBC (which is a good source, by the way)reported that Murati made those statements about AI and job loss—butcritically, CNBC didn't say anything about a controversy or otherwise take a stance on the comments.That is what made your editsoriginal research.
If these statements truly are causing a controversy, then it shouldn't be difficult to find some reliable sources saying that.Woodroar (talk)21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately that article is by a Forbes contributor, which means they're not a Forbes journalist and they can self-publish pretty much anything they want. Forbes is somewhat like acontent farm in that way. The entry for Forbes contributors is atWP:FORBESCON.
If you find a source (or better, multiple sources) listed in green, that should probably be fine. Make sure to read the entire summary, though. Reliability is nuanced, and some sources may not be reliable for everything. See the entry for People, for example, which is green but the summary says it shouldn't be used for contentious claims.
One last suggestion: because you've made multiple changes to these articles and been reverted, consider bringing any sources you find to the Talk page to discuss if or how to include them. That's an excellent way to demonstrate good faith, especially since you're off to a rough start. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and rough starts aren't uncommon, so I'm hopeful that everyone else will be just as willing to work with you.Woodroar (talk)22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for the explanation. In hindsight I should've read the links to the rules that people had posted. In future I will open discussion in Talk pages prior to making any changes.77.98.111.156 (talk)22:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Whether we should modify or not the article on Mura Mirati to include the quote can reasonably be argued for or against.
The issue here is mainly about edit warring andWP:Civility. Despite havingreceived a warning about edit warring and thethree-revert rule,77.98.111.156 has added back the section 5 times (original edit,1,2,3,4,5), in response to reverts by 4 different users. For the revert I made in this article and two others BLP articles where similar "Controversy" sections were added (1,2), I got into two aggressive discussions (1,2), and was accused of having a "huge conflict of interests" for being a "huge fan of AI".
I appreciate the productive discussion you've had here.
WP:CIVIL begins with, "Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors. Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same." Can you please address your talk page behavior in light of WP:CIVIL? (eg[78][79][80][81]) --Hipal (talk)22:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes I will act in a civil way in future. Apologies for being rude to you earlier. As I've said above, in hindsight I should've read the links to the rules that people were posting. I thought I was applying common sense but I accept that I was wrong to do that.77.98.111.156 (talk)23:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user, Remsense, Told me to remove diacritics in the article Palestine, and is threatening to do the same here. They claimed that I personally attacked them and accused me of 'yelling at them' in an edit summary at the articleIndia. They also denied saying that. If you do not believe me, feel free to look at that edit summary, as they won't leave me alone anytime soon. Thank you.🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk •contribs)08:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Sigh. Proudly hanging a banner calling someone a harasser and liar at the top of your user page is a personal attack, but saying one rewrote some text such that it yells at the reader is not. If anyone has questions, let me know, otherwise I'm tuning out.Remsense ‥ 论08:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's currently a row going on between two UK political parties – the Conservatives and Reform UK – about the counter on Reform's website that the Conservative leader has claimed is automated to just tick up all the time regardless of actual numbers.
Party membership in the UK is not audited, so there's no real way of knowing what the truth is as yet.
OnPolitical party affiliation in the United Kingdom, IP and newly registered users are visiting the site and then coming here to tick the figure up. This is remarkably unproductive, especially for an unsourced (and probably unsourceable) number. Not against our rules, per se, but... just a bit ridiculous.
There seems to be no point in reverting to the last sourced versionhere (BBC, but vague) since it's just going to get ticked up from the party website again.
Some options on what – if anything – we should be doing would be welcome (protection? but is that a sledgehammer to crack a nut?).81.2.123.64 (talk)21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Have you started a discussion about this on the article talk page? That seems like the appropriate location to settle a content dispute, not ANI.LizRead!Talk!21:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced itis a content dispute – it sort-of straddles multiple issues, of which content is only a small part. Also, since it's new users and IPs, starting a conversation on the talk page will be me talking to myself unless I start reverting – which will have me over the 3RR and blocked (we give no rope at all to IPs, after all) within 10 minutes.81.2.123.64 (talk)21:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
It's also happening atReform UK - indeed, there's a SPA editor there (User:C R Munday) that does little elsebut increase the membership ticker. Given that the membership numbers are only primary sourcedand disputed, I wonder if it would be better to either remove them or mark them as disputed for now.Black Kite (talk)21:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I use third-party sources (media outlets) to verify as per the rules set out in WP:PRIMARY. These numbers are now NOT disputed and confirmed as accurate after inspection by several reputable media outlets.C R Munday (talk)23:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I've EC protected both articles, Reform UK was only semi'ed and Political party affiliation was not protected at all. If folks think length needs adjusting, feel free as the duration was a guess.StarMississippi00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent disruptive category additions by Simbine0
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Simbine0(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - Keeps disruptively adding the category 'Category:Occitan-language films' to articles where the Occitan language isn't discussed in the article (seeWP:CATVER), continued after final warning. Simbine0 is indef blocked on the French Wikipedia.@Ciseleur: removed the category across several articles due to "inter-wiki disruption", and Simbine0 re-added them - I reverted the additions due to CATVER issues, then Simbine0 re-added them again, in one of the reverts leaving the edit summary of"Sei ein Mann und forsche selbst wie ein Erwachsener", meaning "Be a man and do your own research like an adult". Examples of recent category additons:1,2,3,4,5.Waxworker (talk)19:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I've blocked both accounts. If someone can, a bulk revert of Simbine0's edits would be a time saver. Wiki Automated had only one and it's reverted.StarMississippi00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Azar Altman is disruptive editing and failing to interact positively on talk page discussions. He appears to be POV pushing,unlike you, I know everything about my country and especially the city.[82]
Changing Data:[83][84]. He was previously warned about changing numbers[85]
Incorrect formatting or breaking things such as:[86][87]
Edits have been reverted by at least 4 different editors, three of which have placed a total of 6 warnings on the talk page.
I do AGF they are attempting to be a positive contributor, but they also appear to simply want to POV push and disregard other editors and/orWP:P&G becauseWP:IKNOWITSTRUE. Additionally, there is a degree ofWP:CIR that is missing when it comes to appropriate sourcing and using markup. Attempts at civil discourse has been ignored.[93][94] For those reasons, I recommend avery short term block to get their attention further to contribute positively and also to engage in consensus.TiggerJay(talk)19:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are pushing an anti-semitic point of view and calling editors who disagree with them Jewish as an insult. The original issue is this[95] onList of terrorist incidents in Australia where they say some terrorist attack was labeled as Christian terrorismby Jewish wikipedia editors. I reverted it, left a level 2 personal attacks warning on their talk page, and they agreed to stop.
They then do[96] which just isn't neutral. This was a month ago, and today, they put it back, leaving this[97] on my talk page, with an image,Toxic Wikipedia Users.png uploaded just for me. This is a reference to theJewish Internet Defense Force which I take issue with.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no reason for TPA to be removed. I suggesttalking to editors before opening a case on them on ANI. They have had a very bumpy introduction to Wikipedia so I left them a message. I doubt they will file an unblock request (and have even more doubt that it would be granted) but let's not try to silence every blocked editor who is frustrated when they find themselves blocked.LizRead!Talk!06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What exactly is the problem? She said that she wants to create a Wikipedia page for her friend as a Christmas gift. She got blocked, and now she's complaining that she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If you don't want to explain how Wikipedia works, why not just stop looking at the page?NinjaRobotPirate (talk)03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I offered to write about him and did for 3 long days as a gift and you guys disbelieved everything, none of which I put was false! It's all on the web, in papers, or other media, or pictures and on his websites
Anyways Mark and I were both fans of and he thinks it's a valuable resource for people I'm just sorry you're so negative and inaccurate about me and him
This person clearly appears to be a good faith editor, they just don’t understand notability requirements. Now they’re blocked and being reported? Nobody could take the time to be kind and explain how this place works? Wow.173.22.12.194 (talk)04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thisdoes seem to be, if not a wrong block, one for the wrong reasons - it's certainly not an "Advertising only" account. And absolutely no need for TPA to be revoked, no. -The BushrangerOne ping only05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Replayerr, you may disagree with these, as you say, orientalist depictions, but that doesn't makeCaabdirisaq1's edits "vandalism". You also haven't actually discussed the matter with them--you merely placed two standard warnings and threatened to have the editor blocked. You reverted them a few times onAhmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali but you never explained why. I am not going to take administrative action on a content matter where the complainant (you) have done so little to make clear why those edits were problematic.Drmies (talk)21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Adolf Schreyer produced the paintings in the late 19th century mainly depicting Arabs and they have nothing to do with theAdal Sultanate and those Somali soldiers which fought for it. They have been doing image vandalism on these articles and they're all related to each other.
This image has nothing to do with Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali
These edits adding these images may not rise to the level of vandalism but they seem pretty disruptive to me.Adolf Schreyer was a 19th century painter well known for portraying horses and horsemen, and he traveled to to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and what is now Algeria. He also painted horses and horsemen in a European context. I know nothing about his work other than what the Wikipedia article says or the file pages for the various public domain images on Commons say. If the image file says something like "two Arab horsemen" and the painting was created 150 years ago, then adding that image to the biography of someone who lived 500 years ago with zero evidence connecting that specific painting to that specific individual 350 years earlier is disruptive and unacceptable. So, maybe I am missing something and maybe there is aCatalogue raisonné for this artist that identifies these paintings as representing figures of theAdal Sultanate. But lacking that sort of solid evidence (which should be reflected in the Commons file pages), then adding these images is a violation of theNo original research policy, in my opinion.Cullen328 (talk)04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of the content dispute, Replayerr opened a discussion on anarticle's talk page three times; the first two times Caabdirisaq1 simply deleted Replayerr's talk page post rather than replying to it. That alone seems pretty inappropriate behavior.CodeTalker (talk)06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
He hasn't spoken to me once and I've tried to hold discussions explaining it to him but he ignores them and reverts the changes done. I opened this incident so something could be done regarding this.Replayerr (talk)10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I've left another comment asking them to come to this discussion and participate in this conversation about images added to articles.LizRead!Talk!06:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user's additions of unsourced content to biographical articles (not anyliving persons that I've seen, or I'd have gone to BLP) have been reverted many times, with several warnings. They've made no response on any talk page. Assuming they actually are getting these facts from some kind of source, I would think they could be a constructive editor, but they at the very least need to become aware of our citing standards in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk)04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually in one of their recent edits (here) they added content that was patently false, so for all I know they've made up all the other unsourced info. -- Fyrael (talk)05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they shouldassume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them aboutWikipedia:Civility andWikipedia:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines.Psychloppos (talk)09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. —The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admin,I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.HazarHS (talk)17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting.Schazjmd(talk)17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article has been subject to edit-warring but is currently protected. No further action will come from a complaint at ANI unless you are focusing your complaint on the edit warriors and not the status of the article.LizRead!Talk!06:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the past few months,Navin Ramgoolam has been ravaged by a recurring edit war betweenNikhilrealm (talk·contribs) andBerwickKent (talk·contribs). I understand that both had been warned on their TPs multiple times but have still continued. I'd leave it to others who needs to be sanctioned. Anyways, I have tried multiple times to have the page locked but apparently evaluations on RFP do not believe it is that serious.Borgenland (talk)05:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Both editors seem to have dropped the stick since they received the stern warning from @LaffyTaffer. RFP really isn't necessary since it seems to be an edit war between two specific users who can be individually dealt with without unduly limiting editing by others not involved. It's not that the edit war isn't serious, but rather not serious enough to perform a full protection from all edits just because of a few bad users.TiggerJay(talk)05:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I only issued those warnings this morning, and this edit war has been happening slowly. I'm not sure whether they're actually dropping the stick, but here's hoping they have. There will certainly be a report here orWP:ANEW if the reverts kick back up.Taffer 😊 (talk)05:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPI is thataway, yes. Also you tagged the IP as a suspected sock, when{{Sockpuppet}} specifically saysThe template shouldnot be used in this manner (and I'm pretty sure we don't tag IP socking "account pages" at all anymore). -The BushrangerOne ping only06:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
As a reminder, before using a template there is a handyUsage section, in this case{{Sockpuppet}} saysIn general, this template should only be applied by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process.. But in specific regard to this allegation, do make sure you open an API with specific information. While you can report IP addresses, and this sockmaster has been found to block evade using IP addresses[104], they are in a completely different network in a different country, so initially it would seem unlikely, without very specific diffs to show the abuse.TiggerJay(talk)06:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
In case it is not clear from all of these other messages,User:s-Aura, do not tag an account as being a suspected sockpuppet unless it is confirmed by a checkuser, an admin who works at SPI or an SPI clerk. Your suspicions are not enough to label an account as a sockpuppet. If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, file a report at SPI, not ANI.LizRead!Talk!06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor appears to be using grammar-checking software to reword one or two sentences in major articles, but they either aren't fluent enough in English or aren't reading carefully enough to realise when this renders a sentence factually inaccurate. Some of these edits are also being applied to direct, historical quotations.
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found to infiltrate the water cycle from farms.73% of all antibiotics used globally are used in animal raising. As a result, wastewater treatment facilities can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.
+
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found to infiltrate the water cycle from farms.Seventythreepercent(73%) of all antibiotics used globally are used in animal raising. As a result, wastewater treatment facilities can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HollywoodShui
In the last few years,User:HollywoodShui has attempted several mass additions of (generally non-contemporary) portrait sketches by one particular artist to biographies, all marked as minor edits. I was the most recent one to tell them to stop, and that they need to consider each article instead of spamming indiscriminately. They did not respond, and an hour later they decided to keep going for a bit. I do not see why they won't do this again in a few months or a year.Remsense ‥ 论00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
It looks like over the years they have uploaded a bunch over at commons, and some of that has been deleted. I think there might be a COI concern here based on editing trends.TiggerJay(talk)05:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Remsense, you are not a new editor. You should know that when you made a complaint at ANI you have to present diffs illustrating the bad behavior you claim is going on. Otherwise, your complaint is likely to just be ignored. You need to provide evidence and not just come here and post a complaint. The editors who review cases at ANI want to be able to verify that what you say is actually happening. Nothing is going to happen based on your narrative complaint.LizRead!Talk!07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Asking editors viewing this complaint to look through an editor's entire contributions will result in very little response to your complaint. If you want editors to respond, you need to spell it out clearly and you haven't here. You need to point out the problems, specifically. I don't expect much to come out of this. Editors are busy people and shouldn't have to do your work for you.LizRead!Talk!08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems like coming to ANI is your immediate response to disputes, Remsense. You might try alternative approaches to dispute resolution before bringing editors to a noticeboard.LizRead!Talk!08:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a user who was spamming Wikipedia. I made it clear to them that this is what they are doing and they should stop, and they didn't, nor did they respond to messages. If you think they should be allowed to continue as they were, then that's your right, but I have no idea what other avenues are available if I think someone needs to stop and they don't respond to messages.Remsense ‥ 论08:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Nearly every one of HollywoodShui's 197 edits has been to add a 100 year-old drawing byManuel Rosenberg:
Today, HollywoodShui statedhere (via IP) thatManuel Rosenberg is his great uncle, and HollywoodShui wanted to share the images because of their "significant historical value".
HollywoodShui appears a good faith editor who genuinely wants improve the project. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a photo gallery, and in my opinion, few of the sketches improve the articles they were added to.
A solution for HollywoodShui would be to add a Manuel Rosenberg gallery on the Commons, and then add that category toimages like this.
After engaging with them on their talk page they seem to have good intentions and are specific in how they’re adding images. This does not appear to be abusive but perhaps a bit misguided. A thoughtful discussion on the appropriate uses of those photos (over 100 of which are in commons) would be a good place to start.TiggerJay(talk)16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they were being very discriminate, though. What justifications could be articulated for adding these to, e.g.Abraham Lincoln,Albert I of Belgium,Thomas Edison if any attention was paid to the articles as they were? What is the intended effect for the reader in having one of these sketches pop up across a significant number of the most important late 19th-century biographies? As far as I can tell, I was the first one to introduce thoughts to the process here, and I was ignored. Given their response to scrutiny so far, I doubt if they use this account again, it will be for anything other than the same. If that turns out not to be the case, then of course all the better.Remsense ‥ 论16:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I request that Admins addressthis Move discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)17:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(edit conflict) My condolences.Isabelle Belato has protected his userpage. On enwiki, we usually don't protect the talk page as users might wish to leave condolences or see messages regarding articles the editor has contributed to.Spicy (talk)13:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive edits on Syria-related articles (mostly regarding flag changes)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor has just been editing for about an hour. How about we give them some time to respond to their talk page messages before laying down sanctions? It would also have been preferable if you had tried talking with this editor and not just plopped down multiple template messages. Try communicating, like to another person, before starting a case at ANI. Templates are wordy and impersonal. As for ignoring user talk page messages, they stopped editing after only 20 minutes and many of these messages were posted after they had stopped editing. For all we know, they may not even be aware that they have a user talk page. I'd try not to be so trigger-happy. Let's see if they return to edit. Many IPs don't.LizRead!Talk!03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that I could have been more personal. The reason I reported this editor was that I already made three reverts to the article before they edited it again and nobody else was paying attention to the article at the time I reported. But then they stopped editing immediately after I reported them. Was there a better way to deal with this other than an ANI report?Helpful Raccoon (talk)03:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing my report, I see that a different noticeboard such as FRINGEN might have been a better place, since they handle a lot of similar issues that don't rise to chronic behavioral problems and don't necessarily require admin assistance.Helpful Raccoon (talk)07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
First, I'm French and my english isn't perfect. Then, it's my first report here, so sorry if I'm not posting on the right place.
Since days,Andmf12 (talk·contribs) is continuously reverting on articleCS Dinamo București (men's handball) but also insulting me:revert 1,revert 2,revert 3 + insult: "are you dumb?",revert 4 + insult: "yes, you are an idiot and stop deleting because we are not interested in your stupid rules, like you",revert 5 + insult: "You're crying like a little girl and I see you don't want to calm down".
The object of the reverts is about non-sourced hypothetical (or not yet confirmed) transfers (see ? on each item) but as I explained many times in my removal, "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not acrystal ball". If neededBellahcene and Pelayo's transfer has been mentioned ("devrait") but not confirmed yet. Same thing forRosta.
For a little more context, previous similar behaviour by differents IPs happened in this article and lead to a request for page protection on4 December and a second time on22 December. Actually, the problem wasn't only for the handball club article but the same problem occurred to multiple handball clubs and led to manypages protection. At that time,CS Dinamo București (men's handball) was the worst with already many insults in english ("Where is democracy? We do not distort information, we come to support handball fans who do not have a platform like transfermarkt in football" and "Are you stupid?") or in romanian "iar ai aparut ma prostule?" (meaning "You showed up again, you idiot?"), "mars ma" (x2), "Nu mai sterge bai prostule" meaning according to google "Stop wiping your ass, you idiot").
Blocked two weeks as a CheckUser action. It could be upped to indefinite if someone wants. I doubt this person is going to change after 2 weeks.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An account created last month admitted to being a sockpuppet account byUser:Sewnbegun, after I dorectly asked them through their talkpage.[110] You can check more about Sewnbegun here.[111] Based from my interaction with the sockpuppeteer, this would be their 8th Wikipedia account.Hotwiki (talk)13:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Wendy2024, a sock ofUser:Naderjamie6 has started to make legal threats. I believe that our policy requires us to escalate things when legal threats are made. Seethis diffWe will not give up on our right if we have to go to court and sue every single one of you for this crime, and yes, it is a crime and unjust. Bunch of of you taking over Wiki which is suppose to be for everyone, patrolling it like a gestapos, blocking and banning people. See alsothis diffnow bunch of gestapo are taking over banning/blocking people right and left, and deleting articles based on their prejudice. If there is any Karma in this world, any justice, those who responsible for banning us will face justice.
Long story short, this user is threatening to take Wikipedia to court over their sock block. For context, the initial block was for socking to vote stack at AfDs, however, they are insistent that they are just a bunch of mates at a library editing together.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)10:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I rejected the unblock request and pointed them out toWP:LEGAL. Concerning their unblock, they insist that during a wiki-meetup two users were using the same laptop. Whereas this could happen, if it was an organized meetup, there should be a Wiki user group, or chapter, or whatever, who organized it, and there should be some way to see whether these two users are one or two physical persons.Ymblanter (talk)10:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
They continued to insist that they go to the court(I think they claim this is an Iraqi court - good luck with this), so I removed their talk page access, but an uninvolved admin still needs to look at their last unblock request.Ymblanter (talk)12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On December 10, I noticed on the articleLuca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife withbad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless"bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so,asking it not to be reverted. Zanderreverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admitadd nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said commentsbehind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such asthis andthis.
This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking.Rusted AutoParts02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Considering they aren't willing to amend, or even todiscuss amending, their behavior towards regular users such as myself or Jon698, the flagrant disrespect in that comment towards you, an admin, and similar disrespect towardsLiz, another admin, seems really the only course of action.Rusted AutoParts07:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge my behavior. Taking everything into account, I believe my behavior is notcompletely irrational. I also don't see the logic in "addressing" the "concerns" here (debating/arguing) with editors of higher power than me if we will never agree, because we never will. I don't think any edit I've ever made to a page was to destroy or worsen it, so your accusal of me not being collaborative is highly offensive, considering that on a regular basis, I am a great collaborator, I thank my editors and very often seek out to assist them with articles. They could even revert one of my edits, and we could come to a compromise/conclusion, that is not out of the ordinary as long as it is warranted. I am a flexible, malleable editor. I just don't like thisI am right,your are wrong mentality. Nothing I've done illustrates a wrong view; I don't vandalize, I cite everything I do, etc., I don't seem to see the issue except for others to nitpick small issues. Every now and again you encounter that one editor, that onepain in the ass (for lack of a better phrase, I acknowledge) who is like that, the kind to ignite edit wars. This right here at the Wiki noticeboard is merely just an example of a result of something that escalated. My entire edit history will show/prove this. It is only the opinions of a select few editors that have decided to target me, with which I'm now forced to reckon with here. Doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. That was my logic in not coming here to respond before. For the record, I am responding now not to be unblocked but because I'm not exactly sure what you wanted me to say here. So I guess I'm proving a point by saying, okay, I'm here... now what? Is this really all you wanted? Just for me to acknowledge it? I was not ignoring it, I was just deciding not to engage because what good will it honestly do? Surely you're not blind enough to see that. I've said everything I've needed so say, however rude or crass, or however buried they may be, in previous edits or responses, but they seem to have gone completely ignored and not taken into account. If you look at the order and the pattern of my editing and history, you can see my behavior worsen recently as result of several factors, plus editors who will never see eye-to-eye. I have never had this type of issue before on Wikipedia, so to me, I just take this instance as a domino effect, a contributing set of circumstances resulting in me being here, right now. So, if we all just decide to be adults and move on, the ice will eventually unfreeze and things will go on back to normalcy (Normalcy as in: I will not appear on this noticeboard, just like I've never appeared on this noticeboard for the past two or so years.) Things must stop in order for them to start again.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)02:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
So"I've done nothing wrong, it's their fault" - that's not going to fly here, I'm afraid. You don't mention your explictcanvassing, for one thing, and nothing about your - repeated -personal attacks. And you weren'tjust deciding not to engage because what good will it honestly do - you explicitlyblew off a notice to come here. Even if yourcontent was 100% squeaky clean, yourconduct is most certainly not, and is very muchnot in line with the expectations of editors in a collaborative project, which Wikipedia is. Youcannot just choose to ignore when people raise concerns about your conduct, and then posting the above screed when finally forced to confront it is not, at all, helping your case. -The BushrangerOne ping only02:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge my canvassing, too. Better? The guy already won the battle, the page got deleted. Not sure why it's worth acknowledging. Also not sure why after four votes to keep the page were discarded, because the two editors who I did canvass genuinely believed and wanted to keep the page, and thought for themselves. Not like I fucking bribed them or persuaded them, they did what they genuinely wanted to do, to vote to keep the page. And I guess my vote and another editor's were discarded for no good damn reason, and a vote to "Burn it to ashes and then burn the ashes" (bit extreme, no?) and then one vote to Merge. So that's four Keeps, one merge, and one toss. So that's a 4.5/6 to keep, if my math is correct? I understand now that I should not have canvassed with "opinion", if I hadn't put that in the message, I'm sure the page would not have been deleted. So I paid for my mistake there. But I believe it worth it and right to inform other editors who may be of interest and it was not like I said "Vote yes or die", I just tried to spread the word and said to "help save the page". They could have voted to delete the article if they wanted to, I have no control over that. But they voted to keep it... so again, not sure what else I need to add, or what else is worth discussing. I was in the wrong by canvassing with bias, that was proven by the page deletion. Done and done.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)02:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The deletion discussion was reopened, and the page undeleted by the initial closer. You're still inherently making it a personal issue by asserting that I "won" the discussion. This is why the canvassing is a problem. It's one thing to notify people that a page they may have a connection towards is up for deletion, and to assess whether they'd like to participate. It's another thing to paint it as "saving" a page and painting me in a negative light. This inherently biases an editor, such as with Nils, and makes it difficult to fairly count those votes as they were recruited as opposed to invited.Rusted AutoParts03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge the bias, but yet I understand my logic at the time. As I stated, I would have handled the situation differently in retrospect. And my wrongness about the canvassing was made clear by the then-fate of the page.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand and I acknowledge the conduct, but to me actions speak louder than words. If I react negatively, it was a result of a negative action. Nothing more, nothing less. I suppose I should learn to control it better, but like I said, I've been on edge more lately as result of all this recent garbage that's been happening. I'm not usually this unpleasant or crass or rude to other editors. Like I said, a domino effect. This is not my standard behavior, again, if you look at my edit history and put it into a percentage, it's honestly not all that often.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)02:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"You cannot just choose to ignore when people raise concerns about your conduct, and then posting the above screed when finally forced to confront it is not, at all, helping your case." Yeah, but this is better than nothing, right? And like I said, I'm not confronting anything. I did what you wanted me to do, I'm engaging in a discussion, trying to explain myself. You said in previous messages just for me to respond here. Well, now I've done it. Now what good is it doing? I'm trying. I'm trying to discuss it. But I announce again, what good is it doing? What was the first thing I said? "I acknowledge my behavior." And you know what, I do regret some of my actions. Had I been less naive and handled the canvassing issue better, I might have saved the Guadagnino page. I don't think, however, had I been nicer to certain other editors I would have persuaded them or convinced them or been able to collaborate with them. I don't think nicer conduct there would have made a difference at all, because I tried to approach it from a nicer angle several times, but I just kept getting angrier. Made it worse and worse. Domino effect.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)02:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, frankly that just sounds like perhaps it's not the best idea to be an editor here if trying to conduct yourself civilly with someone you might wind up not being able to see eye to eye with winds up just making you angrier. No one by and large is here to "win" anything, if there's a dispute the situation is to either explain your POV and change another's mind, or to see perhaps your POV is the one needing evolving. The ultimate need is to do what's best for the page and the website.Rusted AutoParts03:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
And, like I said, I've resolved past issues that way before. Jon698, or whatever the user's name is, resolved our beef quite peacefully and understood each other by the very end. We just had to get through the toughness. Just because of this one instance of culminating events I think is ridiculous reason to conclude that I "not be an editor here". And, again, I don't believe you understand the specific example is not the seeing eye to eye, but rather the change in my approach did nothing to dissuade the editor's view whatsoever, and the area discussed was too grey to be merelyright orwrong, hence why the discussions are STILL going on. And that itself made me angrier, as seen by the edits. 'Well, I might as well just go back to being rude if this nice crap isn't doing shit', that was the logic, doesn't make sense saying it now, but I'd never thought I'd have to analyze it like this. Is this discussion helping anything? Be honest. And please tell me if I need to just quit.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)03:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
No one is wishing you to quit, that's something you personally would need to decide (barring of course if an admin makes that choice for you. What led to myself and Bushranger to start considering NOTHERE was the difficulty in bringing you to this thread. As they articulated, you have to engage. The ignoring over a week and subsequent refusal to do so put you inline with being NOTHERE and thus on the verge of being banned. It's not an outcome I've been rooting for, I'm disappointed it's wound up to where this thread needed to be opened. But this needed to be addressed, because your interaction with Jon698 would've ideally been the one and done, but with the antagonism pointed my way with the needless jabbing, it just had to be done. A conflict in content really should not become something where being needlessly rude is the way to approach it. That just makes anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing your point. I speak from experience, being the person being needlessly rude. Alot of could have been productive discussions or productive collaborations with other editors got spoiled because I was too easy to get hotheaded.Rusted AutoParts03:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I mean, is this discussion helping? Is it worth my time or are we just going in circles and should I just quit the discussion? That's what I meant.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)03:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, the idea is for the issue to be hashed out here, but it still seems you really don't have interest in doing that give this response.Rusted AutoParts03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what else needs to be said, that's what I mean. I acknowledged my faults, stated my regrets. I'm not sure what else Bushranger would like me to do. That was sort of the point in my initial message is that I already received the blows from my actions before even going on this Noticeboard, so now I have this on top of everything else.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)03:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
And you're stillnot gettingthe point, as evidenced by your comment right here. Alsomy wrongness about the canvassing was made clear by the then-fate of the page carries the implication that if the article had been "saved", it wouldn't have been wrong - no, your 'wrongness about the canvassing' is because it'sagainst Wikipedia policy no matter the fate of the page. Overall the fact you still clearly consider this discussion unnecessary and a waste of time illustrates, to me at least, that your attitude here is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, that comment was not meant to be rude, and I believe you're reading to much into it. But again, I could see how it could be misinterpreted, but I'm not writing a Wikipedia article here. This is a message board. I'm talking. And I more meant it to be humorous, "as lovingly put by", I don't know, I think it's funny. And my regrets of my faults are buried within these long paragraphs, believe it or not. I believe Screed is a bit harsh to call it, but I might say the same thing as an outsider, ha ha. But to be fair, it comes off as "screed" because this is a delicate topic, frankly. Everything has just been drawn out to the point of... gee, I can't even think of the right adjective... madness? Boredom? Pointlessness? Uhh... restlessness? Maybe that last one.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand the counterproductivity of being rude. In a general sense though, "mak[ing] anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing [my] point," is a logical thought, and I believe that would apply to other and future scenarios in which I may disagree with other editors. I will keep this in mind, though not every editor operates on this logic. This is not assuming bad faith, but it's frankly true. However, I do not feel in this instance that being nicer would have convinced you or would have helped my case. The only thing it would change is I just don't think I'd be on this Noticeboard. You and I would still be in heavy disagreement with regards to the unnamed topic.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't need to become a teddy bear when discussing an issue, you just have to not open an interaction with someone by making remarks about intelligence, and then just going about antagonizing someone if the discussion gets hardheaded. The issue was what constituted being unrealized, I don't think it would be something that was fundamentally impossible to bring about a shared consensus.Rusted AutoParts04:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"I don't think it would be something that was fundamentally impossible to bring about a shared consensus." You'd be surprised. An uphill battle. Not forright orwrong mind you, for consensus. I always seek to find that, I don't enjoy edit-warring. This is not fun for me. Of course, consensus is what I seek to find, a place where the page is at a general agreement at where it needs to be and why. Again, I will keep in mind the fact that being "needlessly rude" will "make anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing [my] point" for the future since there would be no point because it would be counterproductive. Even though it may not apply to every editor, in which case I would not report them because I am not that kind of editor.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)04:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I reported you because of edits likethis. Straw that broke the camel's back. And frankly, it's difficult to believe consensus is what you seek because your very first edit summary pointed my way assertedyou were just going to keep re-adding the deleted content back. What's ultimately being sought in this thread is, are you going to amend your behavior or no? Because this hardheaded rude approach isn't going to fly.Rusted AutoParts04:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I've stated already in this thread that I will take the rudeness into consideration and not do that approach the next time because of how sensitive everyone is. I thought I've made that clear from my first response on this thread from the beginning. Frankly, the rudeness doesn't bother me as I've experienced it back and never sought to report them, because, again, that's not the kind of editor I am. But if you're going to go out of your way to report me and drag me through this, then clearly I've offended you to the point worthy of an apology. So, I apologize. And, just for the mere fact of the time I've spent back-and-forth on this, I will rescind from being as rude in the future (but C'MON, that ten collapsible tables bit was funny! You have to admit! Even funnier that it was the "straw that broke the camel's back"- I didn't realize it would be at the time), but I will still keep my wits about me, if you know what I mean *wink* *wink* — I can't take that away!ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
...so you half-apologise becauseit's because of everyone else, not because of you, and then, functionally, take back the apology. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a genuine understanding thatyou did anything wrong. You need to 'not do that approach' notbecause of how sensitive everyone is, and not becauseyou [went] out of your way to report me and drag me through this, you need to not do it becauseit's a violation of Wikipedia policy, and realise that you're being 'dragged through this' because of your actions and your actions alone which violated that policy. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, that reason and also the fact that it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. That's why I'm here. I would not be here if it weren't so I felt that went without saying.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)15:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I just want to point out to @ZanderAlbatraz1145 that your intent in writing a post or comment doesn't change how it's received. You only have text to communicate with others here, and you have no idea what's happening in the life of the person reading it.
You could be speaking to someone who's having a great day, or who just had the worst news -you don't know and can't know. There are millions of editors and readers, so you need to remember your audience.
In my workplace, there are a few of us with the most inappropriate sense of humour - we will joke about each others body parts, sex life etc. because we know each otherthat well. A few months ago, a new lad joined the team and got on with everyone and decided to join in. It didn't go well at all.
I recently had a dispute with another editor for a similar reason, he was so focused on his view that he didn't realise how it came across to someone who was in hospital undergoing tests whilst they were reading his replies. He didn't know what was happening on my end, but you need to tailor your response to be polite and respectful preciselybecause youcan't know what is happening with your audience.
You cannot presume that other editors are ok with sharp or rude responses just because you are.They're not you.
If you can show that you appreciate and understand this fact, you'll be fine.
I understand that, thank you. But I believe my understanding and acknowledgement of others has already been established prior in the few messages above. I'm just going in circles at this point.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, maybe don't talk crude sex jokes to each other and then he surprised how they are negatively received? If we all treated each other with a little more respect, like we were in a 1940s movie, and talked with some dignity, and some class, I think we'd all have a much better time and a better world. A world in which people use their words better, more effectively, more intelligently.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm...not sure what at all this has to do with anything? But Ithink we're at the point where you can be unblocked. Please bear in mind that your condut will be subject to scruitiny and any resumption of the disruptive behavioreven if you do not personally intend it to be disruptive will result in a full block next time. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll also take your advice and try not to become a teddy bear when discussing an issue, but rather take on the form of like a modest crow, ready to step in at any given moment and spout philosophy.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)00:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AnonMoos needs to figure out a way to edit without making these changes to people's signatures and God knows what else lest they be blocked. It's really that simple: an overview of this discussion makes it clear that this is one individual's issue, and it behooves the one individual to fix it--lest they be blocked for knowingly violating talk page guidelines.Drmies (talk)02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came tomy talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When Istarted a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the useredited my signature andchanged the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according toWP:TALKNO, bothin that discussion andon their talk page, theyresponded onmy talk page statingever since the stupid Wikipedia Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Wikipedia at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion headingagain andagain andagain. Ifinally explained that I hadsought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead andchanged it again anyway.— Precedingunsigned comment added byإيان (talk •contribs)15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The other user in this case isUser:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself.Secretlondon (talk)15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes the is indeed aboutUser:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violatingWP:TALKNO repeatedly even after Iexplained that I hadsought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead andchanged it again anyway.إيان (talk)16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here.Nil Einne (talk)06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff.Nil Einne (talk)06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed.Nil Einne (talk)06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Wikipedia guidelines he doesnot in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)...AnonMoos (talk)23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times[116][117]? That is indeed a clear violation ofWP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid perWP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed.Nil Einne (talk)06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor.LizRead!Talk!07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet[118]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g.[119]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later[120]. Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning.Fut.Perf.☼10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Wikipedia at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason.AnonMoos (talk)01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Wikipediaat all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Wikipedia developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Wikipedia's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Wikipedia from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)...AnonMoos (talk)20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
...HTTPS was created in1994, and became an official specification in2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Wikipedia with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the webat all, and the security hole that lets you access Wikipedia without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that isnot working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introducedwithin HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS.AnonMoos (talk)00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission youdon't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This is probably a reference to when Wikipedia started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more.MrOllie (talk)01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS...AnonMoos (talk)00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit.AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century.EEng18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. Iwas in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS.AnonMoos (talk)00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That wassix years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice.Zaathras (talk)00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem...AnonMoos (talk)01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block.EEng03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlistUser talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there.EEng21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Heck,I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. -The BushrangerOne ping only05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Why do you contend it was arbitrary? Usually there is a reasonable basis for updating HTTPS Encryption Protocols (i.e. security).Isonomia01 (talk)18:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Wikipedia using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption.Nemov (talk)14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Wikipedia wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time.Mackensen(talk)15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Wikipedia broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk)07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Meh. None ofthis matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content.꧁Zanahary꧂07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
What it is accidentally changing is Arabic characters to Latin characters, and probably all non-Latin characters to Latin characters. That has the potential to destroy substantial amounts of content.Robert McClenon (talk)06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Wikipedia's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart abehavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content.Zaathras (talk)16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem.Masem (t)17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
It won't just be accidentally changing signatures, but accidentally changing all non-Latin characters. That is a serious matter for an editor whose subject areas include Arabic.Robert McClenon (talk)20:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Some of the comments above would be very valid if I used my home computeronly for editing Wikipedia, but that's most definitely not the case. I use it for lots of things, and I don't look forward to permanently disconnecting it from the Internet, which would mean significantly disrupting the way I do various things. That may be inevitably coming within a few years, but I don't feel like hastening the process now. As for buying a new computer, I did buy a Windows 10 laptop in late 2020, and it works great on public WiFi, but it's not really usefully capable of editing Wikipedia over the connection my old computer uses -- it's constantly making connections and downloading stuff in the background, and there's no way to turn that stuff off, so it overwhelms the bandwidth available.AnonMoos (talk)23:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
A Slightly Different Analysis
I concur with most of the comments that have been made, and with the general conclusion thatUser:AnonMoos appears to be unreasonably expecting Wikipedia and the world to accommodate to their obsolete hardware and software. However, encryption is not the problem as such. AnonMoos, as they explain, has found a workaround, which isan indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. I see no evidence that it is partially Unicode-compliant. There isn't a visible encryption problem. There is a very visible Unicode problem. AnonMoos is mangling the OP's signature because the OP's signature is in Arabic. When they edit a block of text that contains the Arabic signature, they convert it into Latin characters. The conversion may be a transliteration, or it may be something else. I don't know Arabic, but I know garbling when I see it. I think that AnonMoos is incapable of editing text that contains non-Latin characters without corrupting them. Their workaround may only be problematic for editing Wikipedia because Wikipedia is the only site where they are trying both to read and to write non-Latin characters. So it is the only site where they are failing to write non-Latin characters. Wikipedia, unlike AnonMoos, is Unicode-compliant, and Unicode is a key part of its functionality, especially in certain subject areas, such as the Arabic language. If AnonMoos had tried to edit articles about the Arabic language, they probably would have corrupted them also. They may be lucky not to have tried to edit articles containing Arabic characters.
They may also be lucky to have kept obsolete hardware running for much more than five years. Their 2012 web browser had already been obsolete in 2019, but only became problematic when the encryption was upgraded (not when it was first implemented). My experience, and the experience of many, although not all, users is that hardware typically signals that it is obsolete by stopping working, often after about five years. So I have to have non-obsolete hardware, because I have to replace it. Then again, I don't know about their hardware. Maybe they are running obsolete software such as a 2012 web browser on current hardware. If so, they should move into the 2020s.
An editor wrote:I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely.. I think that the indirect method is an indirect implementation of HTTPS that breaks Unicode.
In the short run, AnonMoos should avoid editing any text that contains non-Latin characters, because they break the non-Latin characters. In the medium run, they have been warned that any corruption of Unicode in Wikipedia will lead to a block because their hardware and software isincompetent. In the medium run, they can request technical advice atthe Village Pump, request a referral for a computer technician from their local electronics store, or get a modern Internet connection and modern hardware.
They don't have an encryption problem. They have worked around that with a technique that breaks Unicode. They have a Unicode problem, and Wikipedia requires Unicode compliance.Robert McClenon (talk)03:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
That's nice abstract theoretical speculation. I have to edit by making a connection from my home computer to an intermediate computer, and then this intermediate computer connects with Wikipedia. My home computer is fully capable of handling Unicode, and the intermediate computer is also fully capable of handling Unicode, but the connection between my home computer and the intermediate computer is unfortunately ISO-8859-1, and so there's not a Unicode-capable connection for every link of the chain. I have no idea how to change this -- I certainly can't do so with the software I'm currently using. I leave aside your effective insults to my intelligence (I've been fully aware of the problem from the beginning, and usually take steps to avoid it, or there would have been a loud chorus of complaints long ago, as I already said) and your meditations on bright shiny hardware that's"obsolete before I opened the box"...AnonMoos (talk)23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE put this ridiculous thread out of its misery?
...with the understanding that the next time Mr. Moose screws up some non-Latin characters, he'll be indeffed? Home computer, intermediate computer, what a load of bullcrap. Why are we wasting time on this?EEng00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lavipao, POV pushing and personal attacks yet again
Lavipao has been blocked again. I assume if personal attacks continue when this block is over, the next one will be indefinite.LizRead!Talk!04:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
edit summary:How much is Erdogan paying you to gatekeep these wikipedia pages?
This user got blocked one week for edit warring (not even his previous personal attacks), still the first thing he do is doing the same thing.Beshogur (talk)22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Beshogur has tens of thousands of edits, all of which are explicitly removing any edits that go against the official state propaganda policies of the Turkish dictatorship. He’s quite literally the exact type of person who should be banned from the site, yet your anger is around the person pointing out the blatant censorship, not the one doing the censoring?Lavipao (talk)01:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
So, their POV pushing is changing "operation" to "invasion" in this one article? Of course, the personal attack is not acceptable but some of their editing looks okay.LizRead!Talk!00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t attack anyone personally. I simply asked this guy what salary he was getting paid by the government to maintain the correct propaganda language on pages regarding the turkish invasions on English Wikipedia.
It seems like a full time job since he responds to edits within 15 minutes and has been reverting all edits to any pages regarding these invasions for at least 5 straight years.
Personally I’m just wondering what a propaganda agent gets paid. I know turkeys economy is pretty weak so I can’t imagine it’s that much , but maybe I’m wrong and it’s very financially rewarding. Hence my simple questionLavipao (talk)01:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I've blocked Lavipao for two weeks for personal attacks. If another administrator wants to increase that block to indefinite, that's fine with me. The user was warned about making personal attacks byThe Bushranger, which the user belligerently denied, and then Lavipao comes here and blatantly - and even more clearly - repeats the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk)01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Armegon has been committing multiple cases that define the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT". He committed his first case with Goro Maki where henominated it for deletion, accusing me oftreating Wikipedia as if it's a Wikia fan page, and I had asked him to close the AFD (so I could draftify it in my sandbox to avoid issues like that happening again, as if I was harassed), but he chose not to, and I decided to get consensus from him to close it myself, and he granted consensus for me to close that AFD.
Special:Diff/1266073828:The previous post illustrates the differences and responses to two Hollywood iterations of Godzilla. This is a poor attempt to keep the GVK image - this was because Legendary's G-Man was under the section of Tristar Pictures and not Legendary Pictures
Special:Diff/1266094010:PerMOS:IMAGEREL: “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose”. This is just there for the sake of decoration - this was because Legendary's G-Man in 2021 was at risk of deletion and I was thinking so much harder and freaking out at the same time of where to put this image.
After all this constant edit-warring that happened,I asked him regarding where should I put it and he claims this to me about the image saying "You shouldn't add images just because they look good", what he was saying was that because I uploaded the image, he theoretically thinks in his mind and accusing me of choosing this image because the aesthetics.
In reality, I only uploaded the image to Wikipedia because I needed to find a more recent and newer image that could replace the 2014 image in the infobox.
Its a bad thing? really? take a look at other wikipedia articles and each of their respective revision history and you will see that their infoboxes has their images interchanged, that's what makes articles work, and now it's a bad thing? really?GojiraFan1954 (talk)04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
First, there is no essay or policy page calledWP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT so I have no idea what you mean when you refer to this nonexistent page. Could you be specific what you mean?
Second, I can't believe that your closure of the AFD on an article you created wasn't challenged weeks ago when you did it. That was improper as you are definitely involved here.
Finally, after reading this, it's not clear to me what your complaint is about this editor. It is not against any rules to nominate an article for an AFD discussion, it happens around 50-80 times every day. I don't understand what your dispute is about an image used in an article but that discussion should occur on the article talk page, not ANI. If there is a problem with edit-warring (which takes two editors to happen), you should report it atWP:ANEW. If you simply don't care for this editor because you have disagreements, well, you probably have to find a way to be okay with that as we all have other editors we don't get along with on this project.LizRead!Talk!04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@GojiraFan1954 Do you want an essay to be written because you think that you're being personally targeted? If so, can you explain why you think that? An essay won't help, I've already explained in Teahouse that other essays exist that go over the same point so that won't make any difference. We need to understand why you're focusing on this in particular and what you want to happen. I can also see that the diffs are for edits from different IP addresses. Are you saying they targeted you personally despite each edit being from a different IP address? How did they target you personally in that case?Blue Sonnet (talk)04:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This began as the OP asking on AN then Teahouse about what category the redlinked term would go in - upon questioning we realised that the crux is because the OP feels aggrieved that their edits are being reverted:”I have accepted their apology. But I'm just upset right now that most of the images I uploaded are being vetoed because they think that their past versions are better." [[122]]Blue Sonnet (talk)04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, just so I totally understand things, there is no essay with this abbreviation that has ever been written and the OP has no plans to write it themselves. So, it's just a meaningless reference and the OP feels targeted? It would have been helpful if this had simply been stated rather than referring to nonexistent pages.LizRead!Talk!04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
That confused me also, I thought they wanted to create the page then it exploded onto ANI when we asked for clarification. I just noticed that their diffs are from IP edits at different addresses, so I don't know how they can say they were personally targeted? There are a few instances where their edits are spread out across IP's/this account so it's hard to track, but it does look like the same person in hindsight.Blue Sonnet (talk)05:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to add that atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goro Maki, I did apologize to@GojiraFan1954: for insinuating a fan-boy driven editorial mindset and articulated that I could've phrased it better, even offered my help to them. Because they're new I've cited essays and guidelines when reverting some of their edits, it wasn't done out of "I DON'T LIKE IT" etc. In regards tothis GVK image, I've made it clear to them that a replacement was unwarranted since aFair Use Rationale (FUR) image of the same character already existed (it's not even my upload) and was just fine as is [1].
I made it clear to an IP (that I now suspect may have been GojiraFan1954) whatMOS:IMAGEREL states regarding image purposes and relevancy; they kept adding the GVK image with no encyclopedic relevancy to warrant its inclusion. I also informed GojiraFan1954 of MOS:IMAGEREL on my own talk page, [2] but it seems they ignored my advice since we're now here. Regardless, I repeated this again to another IP [2] (which was probably GojiraFan1954 too). There seems to be a pattern ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to citing guidelines to GojiraFan1954. As the sequence of events shows (check the revision histories), I informed GojiraFan1954 many times, in good faith, on edit summaries and my talk page why their edits were not constructive, cited guidelines to help them understand, but they ignored them; I even offered advice how the GVK image can be informative to warrant its inclusion -- but again, also ignored.
I also should point out that@GojiraFan1954: seems to be taking things way too personal just because I undid some non-constructive edits and nominated an article of theirs for deletion. GojiraFan1954 must understand that other editors will also revert/undo their edits if they feel they're not constructive. GojiraFan1954 must understand they're not infallible, they will make mistakes that other editors will fix or revert. And GojiraFan1954 must understand they're not exempt from followingWikipedia:Policies and guidelines -- which seems like they're trying to avoid by writing a new essay/policy? I'm not sure what the endgame is there.Armegon (talk)06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thebrooklynphenomresponded today to a series of warnings about incivility, disruptive editing and COI with:You know exactly what your kind is doing and you’re going to see very soon the end result of your racist antics. Leading up to this personal attack, the editor has:
Added a non-MOS-compliant lead sentence using the following edit summary:resist White colonial Eurocentric disrespect for African American clerics. This is a pattern of racism and a byproduct of white-washed persons misportraying the subject.
Refused to answer questions (diff,diff) about an apparent conflict of interest.
Despiteclaiming tobe an editor of many pages, refused to answer aquestion about alternative accounts since this account had up to that point only edited three pages.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BRIGHT LINE edit warring from Sharnadd with the most recent example being over atCucumber sandwich with these three consecutive reverts:[123][124][125] is the most recent examples. Despite attempts at consensus forming, they continue toWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They did bring it to the article talk page[126] but thenUser:Sjö reverted the article, to which, again Sharnadd reverted for the third time. There is an extensive edit reverting going on between these two users. While Sjo isprobably right from a policy standpoint for why Sharnadd's edits should be reverted, they are also wrong for edit-waring and continuing to revert articles, instead of escalating them here. I became aware of some of this after a prior ANI almost a month ago:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174 § Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR. Sharnadd was previsouly blocked in June for Edit Warring, and have received multiple notices about edit warring behavior on their talk page since then, including 7 various warnings in the last two months from 7 different experienced editors. Sharnadd editing behavior appears to be that of someone who feels they OWN articles which have English/British origins and can contribute becauseWP:IKNOWITSTRUE. Their history of adding or changing information without reliable sources goes all the way back to one of their first talk page notices about missing RS, and they have failed to get the point ever since. Since they were previously blocked for 48 hours I suggest a slightly longer block to help them get the point about edit warring.TiggerJay(talk)20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, yes to be clear I would say Sharnadd is the ONLY ONE who is edit-warring, and Sjö is "simply" involved in this situation but not exhibiting edit warring behavior. The actual behavior (to me) seems to be that they are rather fixated on adding/removing information to all sorts of things British. Often claiming this were first British and not American such as Fried Chicken[127] andHam sandwich where made multiple attempts to change the lead toBritish sandwich of ham between sliced bread[128], then after revert,Theham sandwich is a common type ofsandwich[129] and[130], which is effectively another RRR (again a place where Sjö, reverted all three). Also where Sharnadd insist that Carrot Soup is English[131] and[132]. On their own talk page they claim that they are not violating 3R becauseI can revert edits that you incorrectly removed and also on Sjo's talk asserting that evidence need to flow the other direction.[133] 01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)TiggerJay(talk)01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I was not refusing to listen. When I changed the Pullman loaf to the more generic term of a loaf of bread which is what is used in the UK for a cucumber sandwhich and also appears to be what is used in the USA and you changed it back saying it was independently verified I did ask you for sources which you did not give. I reverted back with sources showing that a loaf of bread is used in the UK. Sjo reverted back stating that he wasn't going to bother reading the sources. I removed the information as the Pullman loaf still did not have sources to show that type of loaf is used in a cucumber sandwhich.Sharnadd (talk)03:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
It does seem that tiggerjay was involved led in WP:IKNOWITTRUE behaviour on this occasion as you wanted information to remain on the page which had no citations as you said it was independently viable but yet you didn't bother to verify it.Sharnadd (talk)03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
As you have just stated on sjo discussion page that sjo was correct as it is the policy to revert sourced information without actually reading the sources. Would it not be better to have the discussion on one page rather than you commenting here and also commenting over thereSharnadd (talk)03:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Ras I asked on sjo page just now where is it the policy to revert sourced information without reading the sources back to unsourced information. I had already started a discussion. Sjo should have joined it rather that just revert with the remark that he wasn't bothering to read the sourcesSharnadd (talk)03:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This is simply about your edit warring behavior, and not the venue to continue the discussion about your arguments over why Pullman is or is not an appropriate inclusion to the article. Evenif your reasons were valid, it does not fall under the exceptions when it comes to the bright line of edit warring. However, your responses here continue to demonstrate your lack of competence in this matter. However, I would not be opposed to an uninvolved editor or admin reraising the CIR concerns.TiggerJay(talk)04:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
So why do feel I am involved in edit warring as I reverted information on cucumber sandwhich once then added citations but you feel sjo is not when he has reverted information on other subjects three timesSharnadd (talk)04:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes I did read the policies, yes you did revert a good faith edit as you stated WP:IKNOWITSTRUE without actually adding anything to the original unsourced information.Sharnadd (talk)04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Why do you feel people adding sources to information when it has been reverted without the reverter actually looking at the information is edit warring but someone who reverts something several times on a different page is simply being involved in the situationSharnadd (talk)04:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks I have opened a discussion on it already . I was talking about a different page that tiggerjay brought up where sjo did several reverts I understand now that adding sources to show where changes come from is seen as reverting an edit. I will leave it the 24 hr period before I add citations showing evidence in the futureSharnadd (talk)04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I stated that if an edit with sources is reverted due to you personally believing the original is correct, as that is the way it is referred to in your country like you stated. If it is reverted because they don't want to check the sources like sjo stated, I would start a discussion page or like the page that was linked make a new edit. This would be after having a discussion and asking for the reason for your beliefs and some evidence.
It is covered under bold again. I did not state the edit would be helpful same our that the sources would be. I am happy to apply more sources or rewording of edits.
I did ask you how to go forward if the person who reverts will not engage in the discussion.
As an example with cucumber sandwich which is seen generally as a British dish. When I wanted to change this to a loaf of bread as this is what is used in Britain but also covers what is used in other countries. As you have stated you reverted as you believed that it was independently verifiable that the American Pullman loaf was used in making the sandwich after you reverted I changed the edit adding sources.
I now understand that I should have asked you to give more sources and to consider if a more generic term can be used before changing it with sources to show my evidence. As you explained you preferred Pullman as that is what you believed to be true from your experience of the sandwich in your country. You kindly provided two links to an American recipe and a link to a french type of bread. After I changed it to add more sources sjo changed it back as he didn't want to read my sources. I had already started a discussion page but if this is not responded to by the reverter what is the best next course of action.Sharnadd (talk)06:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
i have explained above that is not what I meant. As stated on the link you helpfully provided I had started a discussion page. If this is not replied what is the best course forward. The link you provided seems to.suggest making another edit was permissible. If a reasonable length of time is given and that edit is not the same and adds more sources to show evidence is it acceptable to still edit on that page. What is the best way forward If a person is just reverting to earlier information that does not actually apply to the article, or because they do not like someone editing a page regardless of if the edits are correct but will not discuss this or try and reach a compromise. If there another discussion board to bring it up on or do you just leave the page altogether and hope that someone in the future corrects itSharnadd (talk)06:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
If literally everybody else holds position A on content, and you hold position B, it's a sign that you might, possibly, be the one not making correct edits, and you drop the stick and move on. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
True, thanks for your help I was just wondering in this case where one person makes a revert as they personally believe something that was originally posted and unsourced to be true and state it's verified without evidence and you show evidence to show that a more generic term is used in many countries including the country of origin rather than a type from the country of the reverter. Once the generic evidence is show and this is then reverted by a different person who makes reverts as they can't be bothered to check sources and won't have a discussion on this is there anywhere to take the discussion. Is there a way to stop people just reverting everything they don't like if they won't join a discussion.Sharnadd (talk)06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Dropping it I'm not assuming bad faith just when it is shown I with there was some from of dispute resolution to stop people from stonewalling articlesSharnadd (talk)07:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to encourage pursuing a dispute when you say you are dropping the stick but there isWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as a place to resolve differences if you can't come to an agreement on the article talk page. It requires the cooperation from other editors though.LizRead!Talk!07:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation ofWP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Wikipedia (although the articles affected are subject toWP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is thatuser:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project:WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to thestatus quo ante and goes on to saydon't restore your bold edit, don'tmake a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage inback-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the largerdispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to thesqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated thesqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questionedmaterial template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that saysBRD is optional, but complying withWikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing andWikipedia:Edit war is mandatory but Uwappa has done neither.
I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD,WP:CONSENSUS andWP:OWN.
Diffs:(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 [probably])
13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.[note that 14:08 25/12 UTC is 00:08 26/12AEST ]
14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using{{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
19:50, 25 December 2024 AtWaist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
(a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts tosqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation."My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa allegesWP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that.LizRead!Talk!20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On theblock list, I saw a bunch of socks blocked, the earliest one I will hang myself on 12:36 December 21 2024. From December 21 to the 30th, the LTA created 36 sockpuppets. I’m concerned that this isMidAtlanticBaby because these accounts follow the same behavior; spamming user talk pages with purely disruptive material2603:8080:D03:89D4:8017:75ED:C03C:6633 (talk)22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm confused by the reverts being based onWP:CITEVAR, since the article (before the edits) only had 1 ref and it used CS1, as did the refs in the reverted edits (unless I'm misreading them somehow). And two weeks seems harsh for a long-term constructive IP editor for a first block. Two editors made 3 reverts each but only one was blocked, that's also confusing.Schazjmd(talk)22:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I started a discussion on the IP's talk page because this was an issue across other articles as well ([134],[135],[136],[137]). Their last edit on Triptane used the existing citation style, so I had no plan to revert further. I did not request nor did I expect the IP to be blocked.MrOllie (talk)00:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I had made it clear on my talk page way before this incident that I won't touch your citation style on the statistics pages you listed in the future. However, on the pages I'm writing I can use whatever citation style I like, and you can't use CITEVAR regarding the citations I added to the page you have never edited. And of course you had no plan to revert further, that would have broken 3RR which I made clear I am aware of.5.178.188.143 (talk)10:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Two editors were edit warring. I don't understand why you blocked the IP but not MrOllie, or better, protected the page to force discussion.Spicy (talk)15:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
You're right. I probably should have done either of those. My GF-meter has been eroding, and I've taken to assuming better of more established editors over IPs. I'll strive to do better. My apologies to the IP. -UtherSRG(talk)15:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Wow. Yes, the IP editor could have used (much) better edit-summary phrasing, but this is one of the worst blocks I've seen in awhile. I've givenMrOllie (talk·contribs) a warning for edit-warring and removed the block on the IP with a "don't edit-war" notice.The BushrangerOne ping only00:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Good deal. We need competent, enthusiastic new editors. Thanks, Bushranger. 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byCarlstak (talk •contribs)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Ross Ah Tow was recently blocked byUser:PhilKnight for repeatedly adding incomprehensible short descriptions to articles. The user then asked toescalate the matter, and, when I tried to explain the situation to them, replied thatI see you are incompetent and you don't know how to work the system. What should be done now?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)13:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like they're creating socks in batches so they can get them in before one is blocked requiring them to change their IP.331dot (talk)10:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I should also note that they have been adding main categories to pages when they are already in a subcategory of the main category they add.[144][145][146]. I have left messages on their talk page but they haveignored them. I hope with this notice they will discuss their edits.Telenovelafan215 (talk)21:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories can be a confusing area of the project for new editors to work in. As you stated, these new categories were just created earlier today, when did you leave a message on their User talk page explaining how categories work on the project?LizRead!Talk!22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like one of the many long-term category vandals we have, especially considering that they immediately jumped into category edits after account creation. The only one I know off the top of my head isSon of Zorn, but they mostly edit cartoon articles.wizzito |say hello!22:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I also have suspicions that the user could be from that IP range from Minas Gerais, Brazil, based on their interests on creating categories and in Brazilian media. I also suspect that another user related toDouglas1998A could beMafiaBoy123. In September, I leftthis message for MafiaBoy123 because they added a wrong category to a page. I received a reply from MafiaBoy telling me not to edit pages related to Brazilian media because I am not from Brazil. MafiaBoy's user page also confirms they are from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Could this be a case ofWP:SOCKPUPPET in which the user has two accounts in case one gets blocked, while also editing logged out?Telenovelafan215 (talk)01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
If you are suspecting sockpuppetry it would be best to open a case atWP:SPI rather than wonder about it here. I've asked the editor to please come to ANI and participate in this discussion.LizRead!Talk!02:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
While I do have suspicions of sockpuppetry, the main point of this discussion isDouglas1998A's repeated addition of incorrect categories and their lack of interest in discussing the matter. I was just adding my thoughts about the IP range that @Wizzito mentioned.Telenovelafan215 (talk)03:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I've never used this account and I'm being falsely accused of being behind this user? That's not fair! I demand answers, because I am being accused because of another user's mistakes. I don't know any Douglas1998A and if I were you, I suggest you change this shared IP policy once and for all, because I'm being accused of a mistake I never made.
And for some time now I've been having problems because I'm using the same IP as someone else. I demand to know: what did this Douglas1998A do to cause me to be unfairly accused? Mainly because my name isn't Douglas, it's MAVIO. I am extremely scared by these accusations. Whatever this Douglas1998A did, I have nothing to do with it. I demand answers, because I'm tired of having to pay for another user's mistake...MafiaBoy123 (talk)03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
And yes, that includes the fact that sometimes I was blocked without even knowing why or what I did wrong. I'm angry and tired because because another publisher messes up and because I have the same IP, I end up paying the price. I'm exhausted and exhausted because of what this Douglas1998A did. This is ridiculous, I always followed the rules and now I have to go through this humiliation of being accused because of another user's mistake? Is this serious?MafiaBoy123 (talk)03:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
And since it's about making a serious accusation, I have an accusation here: for several months I have been the victim of harassment byTelenovelafan215 because I try to edit honestly in relation to the series here in Brazil. and he even threatened me to report the Wikipedia admins just because he didn't agree with what I said.
It seems that only he can edit the soap opera pages here on Wikipedia and no one else, because otherwise another editor (which is me in this case) is considered a vandal and is threatened with being banned from Wikipedia.
And do you want proof of what I say? Every time I edit something about soap operas, it doesn't take long forTelenovelafan215 to go there and revert it without even telling me. And there were two times thatTelenovelafan215 did this (with the soap operasAs Aventuras de Poliana and
Volta por Cima). It's been a while sinceTelenovelafan215 haunts me, because in his mind, only he can edit articles about soap operas here on Wikipedia.
Sorry to be using this space to vent, but I'm tired of being accused by other people, likeTelenovelafan215 because of other editors' mistakes.
And youTelenovelafan215 crossed the line by accusing me of the actions of another user. Just because I share the IP with another user (something I never asked for), do you think I'm behind the Douglas1998A account?
@MafiaBoy123 You have not made any edits toAs Aventuras de Poliana with your account, only the IP range has. OnVolta por Cima, at the time you had added an incorrect category to which I explained in my edit summary and on your talk page why it was reverted.[147][148]
I have left a total of three messages on your talk page. Seenhere andhere. I am not sure how that is harassment. I opened a civil conversation regarding your edits and explained why I reverted them, but you took it as an attack and assured that I "don't know 1%" about soap operas that are shown in Brazil and suggested to stop editing pages about Brazilian television. Additionally you left replies inall caps. Don't play victim.Telenovelafan215 (talk)04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
You accused me of using an account that I don't even use. You crossed the line by accusing me of using an account I've never seen in my life. You accused without proof and you know that words have consequences, man. I'm one step away from taking you to court over this unproven accusation. I have integrity and what you did was ridiculous. I've never needed to practice sockpuppetry in my life and you think you have the right to accuse me without proof? I'm irritated by your petty attitude.MafiaBoy123 (talk)04:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
wizzito |say hello!, do you know why I know I don't have a sock puppet account here on Wikipedia? Because if I had, I would be looking for a way to not be identified by moderation, not coming here to protest against the fact that I'm being blamed for another editor's mistake...MafiaBoy123 (talk)04:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Telenovelafan215, it's because you accused me of something I never did. Explain something to me: why did you accuse me of using a sock puppet account here on Wikipedia?
You may not be Brazilian, so I'll tell you: what you did (which is to accuse me of being Douglas1998A) here in Brazil constitutes the crimes of defamation and slanderMafiaBoy123 (talk)04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@The Bushranger, imo, the block is a bit hasty. There is an open discussion on their talk page about it which could have been steered to have them backing down from the threat. This is an editor who had contributing in the last few months.– robertsky (talk)05:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
If he had only made the initial "I'm one step away from taking you to court" comment, I'd agree - but then he detailed (what he believes to be?) Brazilian law on the matter (what you did...here in Brazil constitutes the crimes of defamation and slander), and in response to Liz's warning made no comment that he wasn't making a legal threat in his reply. If he acknolwedges he isn't making one, then the block can be lifted immediately by anyone. -The BushrangerOne ping only05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
AstroGuy0 has created at least two articles in mainspace and an additional draft. I have reason to suspect that this user is using AI to generate these articles, upon examining the initial edits forDelivering Outstanding Government Efficiency Caucus,Daniel Penny, andDraft:A Genetic Study on the Virulence Mechanism of Burkholderia glumae (2013). As I noted inTalk:Department of Government Efficiency, in which I warned AstroGuy0 about using AI, these edits have a varied use of links, false statements—as evidenced in the DOGE Caucus article that claims that the caucus was established in November 2024, an untrue statement—incongruousness between the grammar used in how AstroGuy0 writes on talk pages and how he writes in articles, a lack of references for many paragraphs, inconsistencies with the provided references and paragraphs—for instance, with the first paragraph in "Criminal Charges and Legal Proceedings" on the initial edit to Daniel Penny and the fourth reference, and vagueness in content. I ran the caucus article through GPTZero and it determined that it was likely AI-generated; I have not done so for the others. AstroGuy0 hasdenied using AI. If that is true, then he or she should be able to explain the discrepancies in the references they are citing and what they are including in articles and why they chose to word specific phrases in a certain way.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been informed I should have tried harder to be brief, so I've revised this posting. The original text can be found in a collapsed box below the revised summary.
I tried disengaging for several days, I tried explaining my concerns with their behavior. They have continued most of this, and it feels like they're unlikely to stop unless this comes out to letting them do what they want while other people don't raise concerns or ask questions or touch anything they've added or changed. Basically, their conduct is presenting issues when it comes to trying to discussing improving content they've made edits to. -Purplewowies (talk)21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Wordier original text posted 19:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
A little background: A bit over a week ago, I noticed an edit toOdd Squad byIndepthstory that added some things I thought seemed to go against the MOS without adequately explaining why (diff) (in particular,WP:OVERLINK andWP:SEMICOLON). Because of this, I did a partial revert (diff), trying to keep what I could while removing the overlinking and unwieldy semicolon constructions (I did this by opening the last revision before those edits and trying to add back what I thought could be kept).
In the discussion on my talk page, I've tried to get them to explain why they feel these aspects of the MOS should not be followed. In response, they've instead:
brought up specific edits of mine mostly unrelated to Odd Squad as far back as a year ago (maybe more since I don't remember some of the things they're referring to), making assumptions about why I made the edits based on the limited context of their edit summaries (diff,diff,diff)
(They also seemed to start editing pages I have on my watchlist out of nowhere (without looking over the pages in my watchlist, Babymetal (where one part of their edit was changed) and Cameron Boyce (where their edits were wholly reverted) come to mind), but that could be pure coincidence. Their edit summaries also haven't gotten any more descriptive of what they're actually doing in the edits they make, for the most part.)
I've tried temporarily disengaging in an attempt to cool things down (avoiding editing Odd Squad and also backing off from the discussion andwaiting a few days before noting I'd be making what felt like an uncontroversial edit), and I've tried explaining why their interactions with me (the hounding, the ownership behavior, the one thing they said that makes it sound like they want to canvass) concern me and/or are inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia (diff,diff). They have continued this behavior to some extent (scrutinizing unrelated edits of mine, ownership behavior in regards to their edits), and it feels like they're unlikely to stop unless this comes out to letting them do what they want while other people don't raise concerns or ask questions or touch anything they've added or changed. I don't know what else to do but raise the concern here. (Also, I tried to be brief, but apparently I suck at it (or else this issue can't be described any more succinctly?). Apologies? XP) -Purplewowies (talk)19:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I reallydo suck at succinct sometimes, then. :-/ Even sat there after I'd typed it all out trying to figure out where to cut things out without losing the "meat" of the interaction (i.e. relevant context). I guess the short of it is that what started as a content dispute (in short: MOS deviations) seems--in my interpretation of what this user has said--to have pivoted into the ballpark of conduct issues (in short: scrutinizing my edits in a way that seems hounding-ish, ownership behavior, thing that sounds like they think Wikipedia consensus is reached through canvassing). Should I try again to revise down the original message I opened this section with, or would "trimming the fat" (if I manage to do so) be weird since it's already been up in its existing form for a day or so? -Purplewowies (talk)09:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know. I'd have to read the original to find out, and I'm not going to do that. To be blunt, if this is the way you've been trying to egage the other editor, I can appreciate why communication may have broken down.EEng13:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I'll try to see if I can't figure out how to condense it, then--today if I have time--and throw the original under a collapse or something so it's still there? In my own opinion, at least, most of my communication with the other editor (barring an outlier response or two) has at least been similar in length to their responses, though my own responses tended to be one edit and theirs tended to be three or four shorter edits back to back (which at one point left me needing to revise my already written response after an edit conflict to try to acknowledge their new message and indent level). -Purplewowies (talk)17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, I've tried revising it down as much as I could manage. I don't think I can trim much/any more without losing context (and/or diffs) I feel is relevant. -Purplewowies (talk)21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2600:1004:(continued) has been putting Islamophobic/bigoted comments on multiple talk pages[150][151], then when confronted, responded with an NPA violation.[152] Was just gonna go home to my computer and give some warnings from Twinkle, but was suggested to bring this up here. First time bringing something up at ANI so sorry if I screwed up.the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk)20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like this situation has been resolved. Automelon is warned not to make legal threats or to blank other editor's draft articles.LizRead!Talk!03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regarding these issues, mythinly veiled legal threats are mainly a scare tactic. This user is impersonating the creator of the game War Brokers, and is threating to ban a player. We have discovered the identity of the impersonator on the offical War Brokers discord, and request that this account (Joja15) be somehow restricted so that they cannot make false claims and impersonate the real, and legitimate Joja15. Thank youAutomelon (talk)02:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Ahem.WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA andWP:NLT apply to ALL users, including those who fancy that Wikipedia is a proper venue for furthering off-wiki feuds. I strongly recommend you review those policies and comply with them in the future. Ravenswing02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
JoJa15 has been blocked for impersonating someone else's online username (while not anotherWikpedian, impersonating someone known primarily by an online handle is still not on). Automelon has been warned not to make legal threats. -The BushrangerOne ping only02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incivility in Jeju Air
I'm going to close this discussion. The editor has been blocked from editingJeju Air Flight 2216 and its talk page which is where the problems here originated. I think that there has been less than ideal behavior from several editors in this dispute. Right now, Westwind273 has primarily been posting on their own User talk page and expresses the desire to move on from this. They have been instructed not to remove comments from article talk pages. We don't demand apologies from editors we just ask that they stop any disruptive behavior. I think all parties need to stop provoking each other, drop the stick and refocus on editing articles.LizRead!Talk!03:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor has a significant problem withWP:GAME as well, specifically in regards toWP:NOTAFORUM. They profess to know of that, and are likely genuinely aware of it, but the following pattern of talk page comments gives me the impression that they are mostly interested in venting an opinion, with no article improvements suggested:[168][169] (the one in question here)[170][171]. These aren't the majority of their talk page comments but are a significant minority. It's only due toWP:AGF that we can assume they are related to improving the articles in question but had this user not had any other edits, these would be promptly removed per NOTAFORUM. This pattern of conduct is problematic because it hinders others' abilities to engage in the threads, especially combined with their unwarranted blaming of others for not magically discerning their intentions, as happened in this incident.--Jasper Deng(talk)07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Westwind273 does show a consistent pattern ofWP:ABF. I asked them to clarify how these were relevant to the discussion and they demanded to know why I was attacking them. I don't know if administrator action is fully warranted but a 24 hour touch-grass break is probably a good idea in my opinion.guninvalid (talk)07:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
They've effectively said they're ok with being banned.[172][173]. Honestly given the lack of remorse over the behavior and continual lack of understanding of why it was poor, despite numerous people all explaining it over and over, I'd argue some kind of block would be helpful. I'd argue it's aWP:NOTHERE situation; despite their claims of just trying to be a good editor, they keep disruptively engaging with others to the point that it's needlessly distracting, and refuse to modify their behavior when asked to.seefooddiet (talk)09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I nearly forgot but could this be a Tyhaliburton sock? I am starting to recall both of them making uncivil and condescending statements.Borgenland (talk)09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I've issued aWP:PBLOCK from the accident article and its talk page. This iswithout prejudice to any other admin taking further action against this editor.Mjroots (talk)17:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
A block from a single talk page seems lukewarm to me. They openly insult other people, there's no sign they'll stop doing so in future because they've never acknowledged wrongdoing or expressed regret, and nothing is done.[174][175]seefooddiet (talk)00:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 86.21.135.95
As a first measure, I blocked the /64 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. That covers most of the disrupting IPs. Maybe wait a bit before seeing if further measures needed. — rsjaffe🗣️03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable at my level of experience blocking a /48. Other admins are welcome to increase the range if they feel it is necessary. — rsjaffe🗣️03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
tgeorgescu, I don't see that you alerted them to this discussion at ANI. I looked at the talk page for the IP they primarily used and there were warnings but no ANI notice.LizRead!Talk!06:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any recent edits from the /48 other than from the /64, except a single edit from 2601:647:6510:4ceb:ed9a:4797:9b0a:bd70 about 4.5 days ago. I have no qualms with blocking a /48 if necessary and/or semiprotecting the targetted talkpage where they are being disruptive/evading. But I'd want to see stronger evidence that the /64 block isn't sufficient.DMacks (talk)07:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
A partial block from that single page for the /48 would work, it is vanishingly unlikely that anyone else on that range would want to edit that one talkpage out of 7 million.Black Kite (talk)10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to formally report this user "The Testifier" for their involvement in multiple edit wars. This user has repeatedly made edits to Islamic articles, introducing biased information without citing credible sources. Furthermore, they have been modifying warnings left by other users on their talk page, which disrupts proper communication and accountability. I hope this issue can be resolved promptly. Thank you for your consideration.Selenne (talk)12:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I have notifiedThe Testifier. They are a relatively new user, so please seeWP:BITE.
That said, there's copioussource-less editing[177], changing out neutral encyclopedic language withexplicitly religious language[178],accusing other users of removing edits "because they don't align with your pro-Sunni narrative"[179], and −probably the worst sign here− editing another user's user page to accuse them of religious bias[180]. All of this needs to stop,now.
I have a feeling that The Testifier may become a productive editor once they learn how things work here, but they need to take aU-turn immediately.☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)19:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings. I put two editors on notice a few hours ago to alert you to a puppet of the already blocked userAlon9393, exactly thisaccount alerted by(Redacted), who has created an article and is basing his comment edits on deletion requests. At the moment he only exists in the English edition, but he may make the jump to other editions at any time, specially Spanish edition.Pichu VI (talk)17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Pichu VI, as stated in multiple places on this page, youmust notify a user when starting a discussion about them. I have done this for you. Please note that here on enwiki, sockpuppet accusations belong atWP:SPI, and linking to a user's supposed Twitter account that they haven't linked to on-wiki may be considered a form ofWP:OUTING. Additionally, you are going to have to make your case more clear. I do not understand why a user contributing constructivily to various AfDs (a totally normal thing, and they found AfD naturally after one of their articles was nom'ed) and posting a page they made on twitter = sockpuppetry.2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208 (talk)21:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I see now that the accused sockmaster was blocked for making disruptive AfD votes, but they clearly wanted to leave forever, and the accused sock didn't immediately go to AfD, they only found it because one of their articles was nominated. It's normal for new AfD voters to not know the exact P/G to backup their votes (but thank you to them for trying in good faith). Accused user, seeWikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement/HowTo if you'd like to learn about some key notability guidelines to use. In fact, them not using guidelines actually shows that they may be a real new user still learning about everything, not a sock of someone who used to (incorrectly so) reference guidelines.2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208 (talk)22:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes by 2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps I'm slightly jumping the gun here but I feel this user coming to ANI is already inevitable.
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns regarding my opinion. It's important for us to maintain a constructive environment and ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I appreciate your vigilance in upholding the integrity of the content. If there are specific points or edits you believe need further discussion, I’m open to dialogue and would like to work together to improve Wikipedia! Thank you.SplinterCell556 (talk)14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
SplinterCell556 Please read the notice on your user talk page and be aware that rules are enforced more strictly in this topic area. Be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independentreliable sources say about a topic. If you have sources that say Hillary Clinton advocates for abolishing private property ownership(what communism actually is), you can offer them on the article talk page. I know you don't- because she doesn't. Universal health care is not communism(unless the UK, France, and most of the western world is communist) and doesn't even have to involve government provided health care.331dot (talk)14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I just put this into several AI-generated detectors (GPTZero, Grammarly, Copyleaks). All three suggested it was AI-generated, with GPTZero giving it a 100% chance. —Czello(music)14:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, fellow human. I take concerns about AI generated very seriously. It is important to us to ensure that our messages reflect genuine and kind thoughts without AI interference. I will take a closer look at my replies in question and verify their legitimacy. If they are indeed AI-generated, I will work on correcting them and ensuring that any content added aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your diligence in maintaining the quality of our articles!
AI-generated content may lack the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human editors bring. This can lead to the propagation of inaccuracies or misinformation, which undermines Wikipedia’s reliability as a source of information. AI models operate as 'black boxes,' making it difficult to trace how a specific output was derived. This lack of transparency can be problematic in collaborative environments that rely on verifiable and attributable contributions. AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate societal biases present in their training data, leading to skewed or unfair representations of topics. This is particularly concerning in an encyclopedia that aims for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The use of AI-generated content raises questions about copyright, authorship, and accountability. These factors need careful consideration to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
In light of these issues, it's essential for every wikipedia user to critically assess the impact of AI on their contributions and prioritize human input to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. Thank you, fellow human.SplinterCell556 (talk)14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you saying that you don't know if you used an AI? That's concerning(and you appeared to use an AI to tell us that)331dot (talk)15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Liverpoolynwa24(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has repeatedly added plaudits such as "widely regarded as one of the best [position] in the world" to multiple articles about Liverpool F.C. players, copying and pasting sources from the body to make it seem like this is well sourced - the issue is thatnone of the sources ever say any of these things. Per theirtalk page, they have repeatedly received warnings (and a previous block) for this, but have continued regardless. They have also removed well sourced categorisations of same on the pages of non-Liverpool players without any edit summary or explanation (which they never leave anyway). They received a block of 1 week from HJ Mitchell in July, but continued immediately (1) after the block.
Me and several others have left them messages asking them not to do this and explaining the issues with their edits, but have beencontinually ignored, and the editor has continued (1,2) to do this in spite of this. Enough is enough at this stage, andWP:CIR applies. — ser!(chat to me -see my edits)11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, enough is enough; if all they're going to do is add unsourced puffery to Liverpool players (and, I notice, removesourced material from players of other teams) then they'reWP:NOTHERE. Indeffed.Black Kite (talk)11:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Andydor07 seems to be a promotional account connected to James Acho
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From thefirst mainspace edit this account made through today, the only article this account has edited isJames Acho (aside from 2 edits toAlan Trammell), and the edits are consistently promotional in nature or disruptive. A few examples:
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I am following up on an archived discussion from last month. At the time I suggested that that a single user was seemingly making disruptive edits from a range of similar IPs. A range block (Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16) was identified as a possibility, though with the potential for some collateral damage. The discussion was then ended without follow up. The behavior in question has since continued so I wanted to get an indication one way or the other whether this would be feasible. One of the pages they have started to vandalize will likely have high traffic over the next few months.Noahp2 (talk)16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Would it be possible to do a longer block, either preemptively or later if the 1 week is ineffective? Several of the IPs have been blocked for a week or more and it hasn't changed behavior so far.Noahp2 (talk)17:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
/16 is a very large range, a smaller range would be preferable. Which articles are being edited? I do see a lot of Drag Race articles in the contributions, if so, then222.153.0.0/17 may be what’s needed, still large but half the size of the /16. The other222.153.128.0/17 doesn’t seem to have any Drag Race edits.Malcolmxl5 (talk)22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism, sockpuppetry and bad redirects from User:NamayandeBidokht / User:12shahriyari
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few months ago, I began to createsome new pages about German folk songs, with my own translation under CC-license (that's still quite normal for a bachelor in history (ethnography), I guess). The above-mentioned user started to push his own remarks, reverting my edits (in spite of my authorship and my notices about my VRTS permission and CC), and endedhere. At least, we (together with other participants) clearly established that I had had such a right and labelled some of my talk pages with my VRTS-ticket. Nevertheless, already the following page I'd starteddrew the attention of the aforementioned person. And that whathe answers me (a poet-translator of folk songs and historian/ ethnographer):
"I replaced (or omitted) archaic 'inwit', 'wont'; mark parts of the translation as dubious.", it was a substantial improvement of that article. My remarks on the shortcomings of its translation, which you subsequently labelled "poetic", still stand"
. The first case that he marked as "dubious" was the gender of the German "Winter". In German, that word is masculine; however, I translated "Winter" as a feminine, and there are a plenty of samples from history when the Germans depicted "Winter" in their beliefs as a female deity or spirit (one might begin fromhere).
I have neither wish, nor time to consider all such current and future "improvements" (a lot of time we've spent solving the question with the VRTS-ticket itself). I only hope to avoid such "waste" of time and strength in the future — either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. --Tamtam90 (talk)15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tamtam90:, anything on Wikipedia can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert"all my edits in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--Tamtam90 (talk)16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That's a needlessly hostile attitude to take.
Of note, your status as a professional ethnographer does not mean your edits are above reproach. Other people may disagree with your translation, that's normal. You do notown edits here, so changes to your edits may happen. If that means you "stop <your> further work," then so be it. —The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Willing to give some grace to potential second language and things not coming through as intended @Tamtam90 buteither he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. falls afoul of edit warring,ownership.WP:EXPERT will be a helpful read, but right now you're closer to a block from mainspace than @Michael Bednarek is if you don't re-assess your conduct.StarMississippi17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Dear friends, I published all my translations before on an "outer" site, not here, though I granted with VRTS all rights to use them — without changing — to the community. That's, to say — publish and reproduce them, not to change in any possible manner and without any consideration. Maybe, I missed, but I haven't found such "conditions" (to change one's works in any possible manner) inthese rules. --Tamtam90 (talk)23:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Now, if you want to remove your translations, probably nobody will replace them. But you have no more say in edits going forward than anyone else does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't publishanything on Wikipedia, I republish here the texts added to Wikisource. That rule doesn't apply to any authentic translations previously published outside (one may create some derivatives, but not change with them the original). --Tamtam90 (talk)08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The button you hit was "Publish changes", so yes, you published it here under cc-by-sa 4.0. I really think you're setting yourself up for a minor disaster by not understanding what the license you're using means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
If you post anything on Wikipedia, you have, in fact, published it. And once you have posted/published it here,anyone can change it in any way for any reason at any time. It can be changed, and saying it "cannot be changed" is a violation of Wikipedia's licensing. If you don't want your content edited by others, don't post it here. It's as simple as that. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
According to your claim, one may change here any text loaded on Wikisource, still labelling that asoriginal (from the Bible or some historical chronicles, from a traveller's notes and so on). However, holding the authorship (demanded by any CC licence), such aneditor would violate the very bases of Creative Commons' spirit: who would share freely their works knowing that the latter might be changed at any time and by anyone and still published under their own names? (Under the authors, I mean here not only writers, but scientists, artists, and other professionals as well). There's a clear border between the original and itsderivatives. --Tamtam90 (talk)08:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue has been poorly explained. The articles in question contain translations that are cited at Wikisource. Changing the translation then results in a false citation. I think it is important to separate the Wikipedia article and the translation document on Wikisource. The wikipedia article can be edited, the wikisource translation should stay intact. The policy question, is how can Wikipedia editors use the Wikisource translation and how do they cite it? Wikisource surely has their own policies.Tinynanorobots (talk)09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
An inspection of the edit history of 3 of these 4 articles shows that my edits were substantial improvements; I never touched the 4th, "Wiegenlied" (Des Knaben Wunderhorn). All my edits are intended to collegially improve Wikipedia; I don't think I've ever been accused of prejudice or harassment, and I reject that characterisation. --Michael Bednarek (talk)10:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, three. Yes, and certain your improvements made some admins from Wikipedia and Wikisource to intervene, to solve the previous conflict (1,2) --Tamtam90 (talk)11:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not the place to settle the underlying content disputes, and I was going to confine my comments to the relevant article talk pages, but I have looked at the articles in question, and I want to weigh in briefly in support ofMichael Bednarek, who was right to point out the problems with the "translations" that the OP added to these articles. Some of them are pretty dreadful, to be honest, and they reveal a shaky understanding of both German and English. In the OP's version ofWenn ich ein Vöglein wär, to give just one example, the third stanza bears no relationship to the meaning of the German original and is only barely intelligible in English, and putting it into a different column and labeling it "poetic" doesn't change that. There are two questions here: (1) Should the poems written by the OP and self-published on Wikisource be reproduced as written if they are quoted on Wikipedia; and (2) Should these poems, given their inaccuracies and other shortcomings, be cited or reproduced in Wikipedia articles as reliable translations of the original texts? The answer to the first question is yes, I think: if they are treated as "published" versions and provided with Wikisource citations, they should be probably be used unchanged (as pointed out above by Tinynanorobots). But the answer to the second question is, in my opinion, a firm no: if the OP will not allow the errors to be corrected, then his versions should not be used at all. The author is free to publish and promote his own poems wherever he likes, but he should not be inserting them into Wikipedia articles and fighting to retain them when other editors have pointed out that they misrepresent the original texts, and he should certainly not be dragging those editors to ANI on spurious charges of vandalism and disruptive editing.Crawdad Blues (talk)17:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Strongly agreed on both points. The translation ofWenn ich ein Vöglein wär turns a poem about someone who wishes they were a bird so that they could fly to their love but cannot, into a poem about someone who once was a bird and is now unable to vomit.Furius (talk)17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The last comment doesn't need any reply: I only hope its author had no chance to translate anything from medieval poetry. About the second question posed byCrawdad Blues: 1) What do you mean under the "errors"? If you mean the so-called "anachronisms" — that's quite normal, to translate them in a proper way. Note, that all (or almost all) songs of thatcollection have been recordedbefore 19-th century, and many of them belong to the folklore of theMiddle Ages. If you mean "word for word" translation — that's impossible for "poetical translation" (you might ask any poet-translator). That's why one may add the third column, for "word for word" translation.--Tamtam90 (talk)20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
ToMichael Bednarek. You began publicly blame me for my "inaccuracies" and "anachronisms". But what about your own mistakes (assuming that your goal was "word-to-word" translation, not rhyme andmetre)? InWenn ich ein Vöglein wär, you translated:
Bin ich gleich weit von dir, bin ich doch im Schlaf bei dir
as
Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep
instead of
Whether I am far from you, Or I am near you while asleep
?
viel tausendmal
as
a thousand times
instead of
many thousand times
?
And once again about some possible "harassment": if your wish is only "to collegially improve Wikipedia", why, right after the first our conflict, you again started to hunt after some "mistakes" and "shortages" in the next article created by me, though other songs from the collection still waittheir translators (I mean only existing articles and only from the German Wikipedia, compare with those from thesister project).--Tamtam90 (talk)20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Since these translations are cited to Wikisource under the author's name, altering them without the use of [square brackets] is misquoting (violatesWP:V) and might be a copyright issue.
However, I also share Crawdad's and Furius's concerns about the accuracy of these translations. Of the two examples listed directly above as erroneous corrections, in the first case "Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep" is in fact a more accurate translation, while in the second case I agree that "many thousand times" is more accurate.
There is also a limit to how much leeway a poetic translation gets; translating "bleib ich allhier" as "I cannot heave"(?!) when the metrically and rhyme-wise equivalent "I cannot leave" is available is way outside those limits. But that's a content issue, not a conduct issue.Toadspike[Talk]20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the two salient points have been made clear: 1) if we are directly quoting a translation from Wikisource, then that quotation cannot be "improved" through editing here; 2) if that translation is perceived as being substandard, then there is no reason why we should be forced to use it - this is not a cite from the Authoritative Translations of German Poetry, but Some Random Dude's Private Effort (no offense).
Hence, in the cases noted, if there is consensus that it does not do a good job, either remove the translation; provide a literal but more accurate new translation; or provide an altered version that is clearly labeled as beingbased on the Wikisource text. - In my opinion, parts of the translation are fine (e.g. the female rendering of winter is actually not an unsuitable touch, even if decidedly "poetical"), some rather less so (although "heave" is a typo for "leave" - right? right?). Fixing up those bits with the help of other contributors might provide good results. I hope Tamtam90 would be sensible enough to not fight tooth and claw against such an effort. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Elmidae, thanks for some support. Without an additional pronoun ('myself'), 'leave' would be a better choice. As for the gender, I already mentioned — that's not a "poetical whimsy": so depicted the Winter the Germans and their neighbours (the Slavs):1,2.--Tamtam90 (talk)12:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The text itself uses masculine gender, so very clearly at the time the poem was written, they didn't, or at the very least the author did not intend that depiction. Whatever - this stuff is for discussion on the article talk page. What needs to be cleared up here is whether you are going to continue to obstruct all attempts to alter the translations according to consensus, because that is going to be a problem. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)13:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Since there is general agreement that decisions about the use of these translations should be discussed on the article talk pages, I will note here that I have removed the disputed translation fromWenn ich ein Vöglein wär, leaving in place the more literal version, which seems to me a better choice for an encyclopedia article. I've explained my reasoning on the talk page; other comments are welcome there.Crawdad Blues (talk)18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm already pointed at two wrong translations of my opponent. Instead, without any further discussion, youremoved my "poetic" version and left his "text" (without proper rhyme and metre, though still with some mistakes). Is that a way of how-to-use talk pages in en-wikipedia? --Tamtam90 (talk)15:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Of the two "wrong translations" you point out above, the first is not wrong at all. (The adverbdoch in the second clause shows that the construction is "although X, nevertheless Y"; your "whether ... or" translation is impossible.) Your second suggestion, however, has already been accepted and added to the article. Another editor saw your comment, agreed with it, and made the change. This is how collaborative editing works: sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't. I explained my reasons for removing your translation fromWenn ich ein Vöglein wär on the article talk page. If you can come up with a compelling argument why it should remain in the article, someone else will probably restore it. The place to do that is the talk page.Crawdad Blues (talk)14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor may lack a mechanism to communicative effectively
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Basaatw generates all of their prolific Talk comments atTalk:2024 United States drone sightings with an LLM. They've indicated[198] this is the only way they are able to communicate and, when probed, seem to have committed[199] to exclusively using the LLM to respond to other editors' questions and comments.
The issue is that the AI-generated Talk comments are so contorted and unnatural that they have the effect -- and I don't think this is Basaatw's intent -- of diverting all discussion to the unusual writing style of the comments as opposed to the actual content of what Basaatw is trying to express (e.g.[200],[201], etc.).
As I hinted to Basaatw here[202], if they are unable to communicate using unaided cognition, and the technical adjunct they're using to assist them is also ineffective at communicating in a way in which our OI editors can interact, their contributions are having the effect of being disruptive (and, again, I don't think that's purposeful). We've generally accepted that editors must possess some method"to communicate effectively" as a condition of editing.
What I find a little frustrating is not knowing whether these are Basaatw's original thoughts rendered through alarge language model (e.g.ChatGPT), or if I'm really just wasting my time conversing with a software program. I'm not against the careful use of LLMs to edit articles or even to contribute to discussions, but if your comments are long and numerous, of questionable quality, and are clearly AI generated, responding to them becomes awaste of editors' time. –Anne drew (talk·contribs)19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think a number of good thoughts were used when you posted over atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Humans sharing accounts with machines. I haven’t looked at this accused users posts yet, but I think distributive or unproductive editing or correspondence should be handled the same regardless if a LLM was used to assist the user or not. There might be a room for an ounce of extra AGF (but not much) similar to what we might extend to a user who is using a translator because their English isn’t very good. But at the end of the day, using a standard translator or an advanced LLM is not an excuse for being disruptive and this should be treaded as such.TiggerJay(talk)19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I just took a look --- boy does that everQUACK like LLM! Such that the responses seem to generally sound apologetic in tone, but but their further edits do not actually correlate to their apology. Looking atthis apology they still continued to break references, abit in a different way. At the time of that apology all of the references were good[203] but then after a series of edit, the page was left with 4 broken references. Regardless of the LLM aspects, this is still a disruptive editor.TiggerJay(talk)22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
If this editorreally cannot communicate without an LLM then their English is not good enough to write anything in Wikipedia articles, so they should be blocked perWP:CIR.Phil Bridger (talk)20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Using LLMs is just the user's problemnow. The user's account was created in 2006 but the first edits appear in 2016. Thesecond contribution was used to createScott Binsack, summarily deleted as promotional byUser:DGG; the warning fromUser:Kudpung is still thetop entry on the currentUser talk:Basaatw. Theuser's deleted contribs show three deleted drafts. The second of those wasDraft:Franklin Boggs, which was deleted byUser:JJMC89 for clear copyright violations. The third wasDraft:Parsec Incorporated, an admitted COI draft which was speedy deleted as G11 byUser:Jimfbleak. These contributions were over four years ago. Seven years ago Basaatw createdSidney Simon (which may also be a COI case) but looks quite notable on my first pass. It's hard to ignore the many revdelled versions (diff) which wereapparent copyright violations as well. After a three year inactive period, in October the account came back to makeUser:Basaatw/sandbox/Jamie Lackey. This last Sunday, the user shows up with their shiny new ChatGPT and since then, that's the only sort of edit they've made.BusterD (talk)22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what should be done here but I just wanted to mention that the use of LLM is not always be due to poor language skills, there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate. I gather that the editor has not been specific on why they rely on LLM but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet. Regardless of the reason though, if this use of a AI assistance is becoming disruptive, I can see that action might need to be taken.LizRead!Talk!01:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate" Yes, that's an important reminder. I'm inclined to believe whatever the ultimate resolution is, it impose the lightest impediment on the editor's participation that's possible.Chetsford (talk)02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. When Chetsford and Liz Read reached out, I came here to engage because I believe in Wikipedia's collaborative spirit.
I want to clarify my use of tools in contributing to Wikipedia. I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards.
Editors have raised concerns about my handling of references. While I acknowledge this as an area for improvement, WP:COLLAB reminds us that none of us is perfect. To improve my referencing, I'm reviewing feedback and welcome specific examples of where I can do better.
I value being part of Wikipedia and contributing to its mission. Being included in this discussion shows how open communication helps us all work better together. I welcome specific feedback about my contributions and am committed to meeting community expectations while fostering a collaborative spirit.
I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards. Could you explain how you reviewed WP:TOOLS and how it encourages llm use?CMD (talk)15:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposed CBAN on use of certain technological adjuncts by editor
Noting, as I previously have, that I am INVOLVED, I propose Basaatw be subject to aWP:CBAN on adding content to Wikipedia created by LLMs, NLP pipelines, procedural generators, rule-based chatbots, or similar technological adjuncts, and that this ban extend to include both mainspace articles and Talk pages.Chetsford (talk)22:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I would agree somewhere between NOTHERE and CIR. It doesn't matter how you use the tools, if you're being unconstructive, the LLM is at best just an excuse, which we don't really care much about after multiple attempts have been made to bring correction. It is right up there with bad edits using a mobile device, it can be the reason for the mistake, but that doesn't mean we just let people continue to use that excuse, instead they need to step up with their use of preview/etc., and be responsible for their own actions.TiggerJay(talk)23:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree. The problem with LLMs is that they don't understand the rules of Wikipedia. A user who is copy/pasting LLM responses is unlikely to learn the rules of Wikipedia, precisely because the user trusts the LLM to provide adequate answers.tgeorgescu (talk)17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocking indef as NOTHERE, given their two new GPT-created threads onTalk:2025 New Orleans truck attack (1,2). Looking at their entire edit history, they clearly not here to create the best online encyclopedia. They were here to create articles about connected subjects; now they're here apparently to calibrate LLMs for talk pages on high visibility articles. They've upgraded to proposing pagespace wordings and giving deadlines. We don't feed trolls; we shouldn't enable trolls using LLMs when the evidence is clear.BusterD (talk)19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please note thatthis edit takes the article-space statement from theIndigenous Voice to Parliament article describing a body intended torecognise Indigenous Australians as "the first people of Australia" (quotes in original) and adds a wikilink from 'first people' to the articlemaster race. Surely equating Australia's Indigenous / first people, a historically disempowered and disenfranchised group, with the Nazi concept of Aryan supremacyin article space and within a quotation (thereby assigning this Nazi implication to the Referendum Council being quoted) calls for more than a warning over edit warring?1.141.198.161 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Adding thatthis edit adds wikilinks that characterise the failure of the referendum to patriotism an opposition to racism, but highly questionable characterisations. This user appearsWP:NOTHERE to me.1.141.198.161 (talk)07:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article forTaylor Lorenz. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrotethis post on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).
Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?
°3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.
Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that.____
I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.
I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.
Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here.LizRead!Talk!09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
I try to learn when experienced editors engage with me in a helpful and respectful manner. Your comment does not fit that description.
As an aside, I wasn't aware that non-admin, IP-only editors, who arenot involved with the incidents I've reported would be participating in this discussion.Delectopierre (talk)23:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested for doing so.User:Delectopierre, you should have notifiedUser:Awshort yourself, there are messages instructing editors to do so all over this page including on the edit notice that you see any time you post a comment here. As I said, you are also advised to discuss disputes first with involved editors before posting on a noticeboard. ANI is where you come for urgent, intractable problems, it's the last place you go when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked. This also looks like a standard content disagreement regardingTaylor Lorenz and the fact that Awshort reverted one of your edits.LizRead!Talk!21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Liz as I noted above, I attempted to discuss their behavioron the article here, and their response was to wikihound me.
As I saidhere I don't feel comfortable discussing what feels like and seems to be harrasment, directly with them, as it felt like intimidation to stop confronting them about what I see as bad behavior on the article. I was waiting for a reply to that statement before proceeding.
I think I’ve been unclear. The content dispute is a content dispute. You’re right about that.
That isNOT why I posted here. I posted here because the content dispute spilled off that article and has now resulted in wikihounding. The wikihounding, specifically, is why I posted here.Delectopierre (talk)05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
First, thank youActivelyDisinterested for the initial ping andLiz for the follow-up ping. The majority of this is over theTaylor Lorenz article as a whole, but there have been some policy issues sprinkled throughout.Delectopierre anyone can participate in noticeboard discussions whether involved or not, the 'IP-only editor' you referenced has more edits than both of us combined, and registration is not a requirement to edit Wikipedia nor participate in community noticeboards.
they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior - That isn'taccurate since I post on the BLPN often, as well as using it to find articles I can help out on since I mainly focus on editing BLP's. I checked out the BLPN, noticed it was missing a discussion of interest from earlier in the day (Maynard James Keenan) and checked the edit history to see if it was removed for a reason. I saw the previous edit by DP hadremoved it as well as another discussion so I restored it. That wasn't me 'hounding' them, that was me fixing an error so other discussions could continue. I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well, saw the edit history forthis edit with the summarycritics don't accuse him of anti-semitism. he is an antisemite, and checked the edit which had been changed to calling the person that. The prioredit had the edit summary ofadding back david icke qualifier, so I checked that one as well since I assumed it would be similar. When it was confirmed, I reverted since it seemed a BLP violation as well asWP:LIBEL. Since there was a talk page discussion regarding the prior one, Iposted that I had removed it from another article as well, in case it went to a noticeboard both could be noted. It is worth noting that the edit Iremoved was originallyadded a few months prior by the same user. I think most editors would have acted in the similar manner regarding the edits and I stand behind them.
I thinkAwshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use withnewer editors like myself. is somewhat disingenuous when on their first full day of editing the Lorenz article after being registered since 2018 and mostly inactive they seemed to know enough policies to quote them in their edit summaries (WP:AVOIDVICTIM,WP:BLPBALANCE,WP:PUBLICFIGURE), theirpost that to BLPN referenced NPOV, as well as learning other policies that were left on their talk page (CTOP byTheSandDoctor,NPOV byLittle Professor).
And it's hard to reply to the linked conversation above where it's implied I'm hounding in the closingcomments with only one side of the story presented.
"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."
The same section that you're quoting also saysCorrect use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, orcorrecting related problems on multiple articles. (bold added)Schazjmd(talk)21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing related about the other articles they followed me to, and I fail to see how the problems are related. The only common denominator is me. They will, I'm sure, say they're all BLP. Doesn't matter, tons of this encyclopedia is BLP and if Awshort feels I shouldn't be editing any BLP, there are methods of addressing that belief that don't include following me around wikipedia to make sure I don't do anything they disagree with.Delectopierre (talk)04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It's only hounding if they act on it. You need to show at least a few diffs that they are editing on a page you are editing, and they would not have been interested in it otherwise. If they are stalking your history, but do nothing, its technically non-actionable.Bluethricecreamman (talk)22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Also going "this editor made problmatic edits, I should check their history to make sure they haven't made more, and fix any others they've made" is most assuredlynot hounding. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
After a long winded disagreement on a talk page that included them starting multiple edit wars, my view is there aremuch better ways of addressing this. For example, they could have started a conversation on my talk page.
Additionally, who is to say which edits are problematic? I view a number of edits Awshort made as problematic, so I disengaged from the conversation rather than continuing to go in circles.
Lastly, could you help me understand how a non-admin editor checking another editor's history and reverting their edits is not hounding? It seems to fit the definition of hounding.
Easy. Someone sees you made an edit they consider problematic. They go and check your other edits to see if you made other problematic edits. They revert any problematic edits they find. Being an admin or not has nothing to do with it. If theycontinually do this over a period of time, then it may be hounding. If they go through it once because they noticed something, it's not. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
After a long winded disagreement on a talk pagethat included them starting multiple edit wars - Ignoring the dig about 'long winded disagreement' and just pointing out the following since I was accused yet again of something else
## 'Attempts to discredit her work'
Inclusion of RollingStone reference and 'attempts to discredit her work' text by DP on Aug 17, 24
Removed both the Podcast reinsertion, and the previous reporting texts on Nov 28 with the same reasoning and asked to take it to TP and try to obtain consensus before insertion again.
## 'Assaulted'
Harassment section which included 'assaulted' added Aug 17 by DP
Removed the word assaulted from the harassment section on Nov 28 since it was covered in her career section.
It seems like the very definition ofWP:OWNBEHAVIORAn editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. This isn't entirely an "I don't like Awshort messing with my edits" issue; this is a "I don't like anyone messing with my edits" issue.
Coincidentally, its also covered inWP:HOUND atWP:HA#NOT:It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); that is part of what editor contribution histories are for.Editors do not own article content, or their own edits, and any other editor has the right to revert edits as appropriate. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.
On almost every attempt to edit text inserted by DP, be it by other editors or myself, editors are met with resistance. That includes when their text that was inserted is changed in any manner, including being reworded or moved.
I have just rolled back this edit ([209]) which (1) inaccurately introduces an incorrect Somali name intoSomali Armed Forces; (2) installed a poor homemade copy of the Armed Forces crest [of] dubious copyright and authenticity into the article, when a PD photo is visible in the infobox image; and (3) violatedMOS:INFOBOXFLAG with the infobox.
I would kindly request any interested administrator to review the very dubious insertions of inflated personnel numbers introduced by this user into various Somali military articles, plus the error ridden and biased edits warned about at the top of the editor's talk page, with a view to aWP:TOPICBAN from African & Middle East military articles, widely construed.Buckshot06(talk)21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
User:YZ357980 doesn't have a history of communicating with other editors. I have posted to their talk page, encouraging them to come to this discussion but I'm not optimistic that they are even aware that they have a User talk page.LizRead!Talk!01:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thread on List of Crypids talk page has devolved into an unproductive flame war
The thread,List rapidly further degrading initially started out as another attempt to delete the list and similar Cryptozoology pages but has now devolved into toxicity with insults and personal attacks directed at users engaging with the thread.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEdelgardvonhresvelg (talk •contribs)05:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not entirely focused on cryptozoology, as I have edited topics related to film, music, literature, zoology, video games, extinction, and technology. How is asking for an article to be cited on a zoology article related to cryptozoology?Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk)06:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Edelgardvonhresvelg, what action are you seeking here? If you are making a complaint about personal attacks, you must provide evidence/"diffs" of examples of the conduct you are complaining about. Just mentioning a talk page without identifying the editors or edits that are problematic will likely result in no action being taken. You need to present a full case here and if you mention any editor by name, you need to post a notification of this discussion on their User talk page.LizRead!Talk!08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this case, I would have just approached an individual admin to handle this. Posting this at ANI just draws attention to the BLP-violating edit.LizRead!Talk!05:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuffJypian (talk)13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The thing is, articles that only extended confirmed users can edit are like that for a reason. What kinds ofimportant stuff were you planning on working on?🐔ChicdatBawk to me!13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble.Nil Einne (talk)14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
If you create alternative accounts to try and bypass your primary account's restrictions, you will end up being banned.GiantSnowman14:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
As an aside, is it possible to take away the EC permission before it is achieved or otherwise prevent it being automatically gained? I said what I said above because I incorrectly thought they hadn't yet achieved EC. Given this I thought either an admin would need to watch out for them (unless there's an admin bot which can do this) or they could voluntary refrain from using their EC and this wouldn't be necessary. But I checked after and realised I was wrong about them not gaining EC and I'm wondering if I could be wrong about the removal of EC before it's automatically gained.Nil Einne (talk)16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before.QwertyForest (talk)16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done. I've left a note on their talkpage that they will almost certainly be unblocked if they promise to keep away from ARBPIA until they are extended-confirmed.Black Kite (talk)11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions ofWP:MEATPUPPETry
It's said thatCheckuser is not for fishing - well, ANI isalso not a place to bring fishing expeditions. If you have evidence ofrecent misconduct by an editor, then by all means bring it. But if you just[hope] more would come to light, expect a{{trout}}ing. I'm closing this as unactionable with a fish for the OP, and a caution to in the future compile evidencebefore coming to ANI. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of these editors,Paleface Jack (talk·contribs), has been caught lobbying off site (right here). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety ofWP:MEATPUPPETs popping up toWP:Wikilawyer any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference.
Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles.
As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics likecryptozoology, utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years.
As is far too typical in ourWP:FRINGE spaces, any action by myself and others introducingWP:RS on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding byWP:RS andWP:NPOV (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "wikifascist", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-termWikipedia:Disruptive editing and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long.
This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site.
I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pagesKanyeWestDropout (talk)06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreadedWP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" ([211]). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune.:bloodofox: (talk)07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident.
That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics.
Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPaleface Jack (talk •contribs)
If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. -Bilby (talk)07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki.:bloodofox: (talk)07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and practices.LizRead!Talk!08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
While the editorhas been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return).:bloodofox: (talk)08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
As I have said before, I am not used to conflict on the site and naively did that. If you look back at that whole debate, I did reply saying I was not aware that it was bad. If you look at my history of edits, I rarely (if ever) participate in conflict. I prefer to edit like everyone else on here in a constructive and beneficial manner, so all those accusations strike a nerve with me as they are both untrue and slander. As I have said previously, bloodoffox has a history of provoking conflict by aggressive behavior towards other editors, even when those editors are in the wrong they should not be treated with the level of disdain and contempt. Slandering myself or others either based on an isolated and admitted mistake, then constantly bringing it up as "proof" of his claims that I am an instigator of any sort of conflict he has with others is behavior that only inspires destructive conflicts or edits. I have, in the past, reached out to bloodoffox to apologize and also offer assistance with other projects thinking that would mend any sort of anger and hate. This recent incident has proved me wrong and I am sad to see that it has come to this. I never wanted any conflict, just a healthy way of moving forwards to tackle fascinating and notable topics.
I will admit that it is frustratingly difficult to make edits on fringe topics, I am one of those people that tried to edit some but got frustrated by the overly tight restrictions on the subject (not that I was leaning to one side as some claim I do), which is why I rarely edit on the topic and only do so when I see that there is reliable information benefiting and fitting of the standards set by Wikipedia. I love information, and even fringe topics have enough within Wikipedia's confines to exist on the site and be a fascinating read for people. I truly hope you read this bloodoffox and realize I never meant you ill or advocate for people harassing you, I want this platform to explore information correctly and efficiently, even if we do not agree with the topic. That is pretty much all that should be said on this matter and hopefully it gets resolved.Paleface Jack (talk)17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers toSomali Armed Forces,Somali Navy, etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted.
Editor clearly has some seriousWP:CIR issues, given thisWP:MADEUP stuff, and using...let's saynon-reliable sources elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators reviewUser_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..)Buckshot06(talk)03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind.Buckshot06(talk)21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m relatively new to Wikipedia editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Wikipedia editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked.Historian5328 (talk)19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the pblock on Historian5328 as it appears what was happening was 'new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing', but best to keep an eye on their edits. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Footballnerd2007
This is going nowhere fast. Whether or notFootballnerd2007 is using an LLM to respond to conversations, they've promised to stay out of other editors' userspace drafts, been notified they shouldn't start RfAs for other editors without speaking to them, and said that they would be more careful with moves. (On that note, I can't warn Footballnerd2007 to not close RM discussions, but I'd highly recommend they avoid doing so until they become more acquainted with community norms.)voorts (talk/contributions)22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (seeUser:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji)" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever.GiantSnowman20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for raising these concerns. I'd like to address the points you mentioned:
1.Botched Page Moves: Regarding the page moves, I made an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of article titles based on my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge that there was a typo introduced, which I appreciate being pointed out, and I have since corrected it. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure that such errors do not occur.
2.Messing with User Space Draft: I apologise for any disruption caused to your user space draft. My intention was never to interfere with your content. I recognise that user space is personal, and I will be mindful to avoid making any uninvited changes moving forward.
3.Creation of an RFA for Cyberdog958: As for the RFA for Cyberdog958, I stand by my decision to create it. I believed that Cyberdog958 hads demonstrated the necessary qualities for adminship and could be a positive asset to the community. There was no ill intent behind my actions. The RFA was made based on a genuine belief that they were qualified, and I will continue to support nominations that I feel are appropriate based on the contributions and behavior I observe.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I strive to make constructive contributions and act in good faith, and I appreciate your understanding.
I wasn’t pinged about this ANI, but I found it through the RFA message on my talk page. I guess I appreciate the thought, if it was coming from a sincere place, but I would have declined the nomination if I was asked. I’ve never come across this user or interacted with them in any way until now so I’m not sure why they picked me.cyberdog958Talk20:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Footballnerd2007, given that Cyberdog958 has confirmed that they have never interacted with you, please confirm how you found them to nominate them for RFA?
Footballnerd2007 thank you for trying to help out, and I'm sorry that GiantSnowman has chosen to escalate this in the way that he has. Page moves can be tricky, and you might want to sit back and watch the process for a while before participating in it yourself. Regarding RFA, it's a serious decision that people usually mull over for years before they finally agree to submit their names, so it's going to be more than a little jarring to have someone else do it on one's behalf. With the user space, it seems you understand the issue so there's no need to retread that. Going forward, I suggest taking things slow and asking for help whenever you think about entering a new area. I've been doing this for a few years now, and I still reach out to someone with experience in the area if I think I want to try something new!Thebiguglyalien (talk)21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Footballnerd2007, the response that you made at 20:08 has formatting that I have only seen before from AI, never from a human editor. Was it made with an LLM? If so please talk to us in your own words.Phil Bridger (talk)21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again?GiantSnowman21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Why did you continue to make the same questionable edits that other editors have previously queried with you? Unless you are deliberately trying to be disruptive?GiantSnowman21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Yethere they deny using Chat GPT. So either it'snot LLM (and multiple users have raised these suspicions, which I share) and just very odd language, or they are a liar. Which is it?GiantSnowman21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I pulled 11 random AI detectors from Google. Of them, seven give a 100% AI rating. One gives 50% and the 3 others give 0%.Tarlby(t) (c)21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's notyour words but the LLM's. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
We'll take that as a 'yes' then - and that you therefore have not been truthful. The tiny modicum of AGF I had has now fully disappeared.GiantSnowman22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole.GiantSnowman21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You're not helping your case right now. Even if you're getting dogpiled (especially if you're getting dogpiled) you need to speak clearly and directly. You'll gain far more goodwill by saying you're using an LLM and agreeing to stop.Thebiguglyalien (talk)22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor.GiantSnowman22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor.Thebiguglyalien (talk)22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Which is what I usually try and do, but the alarm bells just really rang here, and I simply wanted a second pair of eyes on the contribs to tell me "yes it's fishy" or "no you're thinking too much". I did not envision this discussion!GiantSnowman22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's 4 more AI detectors. Two give 100%, one says 11% (literally the last two sentences), and the other gives 50%.Tarlby(t) (c)22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about[213] byJahuah. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked.tgeorgescu (talk)06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack.Jahuah (talk)06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
According tocritical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs.tgeorgescu (talk)06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic.tgeorgescu (talk)07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology.Jahuah (talk)07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target.tgeorgescu (talk)07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approachingWP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have torespond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Wikipedia get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise.Jahuah (talk)08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like.Iskandar323 (talk)07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't have "mods" on Wikipedia. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Wikipedia works.LizRead!Talk!08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Wikipedia is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all.LizRead!Talk!09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon.Jahuah (talk)10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple
For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo.EEng06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. -Purplewowies (talk)05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TTTEMLPBrony (talk·contribs) has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including byFlightTime,Doniago andLindsayH, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.WP:COMMUNICATION is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they createdList of second unit directors, which is barely referenced.soetermans.↑↑↓↓←→←→ B ATALK12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user.Bishonen |tålk15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
They know about talk pages,Bishonen, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~LindsayHello17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure whyUser:Soetermans even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out inWP:INDEF have been met. AndWP:BLOCKDURATION most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful blockUser:Bishonen. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified.Nfitz (talk)00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells themPlease respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked. Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention.Schazjmd(talk)00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Wikipedia. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Wikipedia warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it.Nfitz (talk)00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response fromUser:Bishonen, perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal).Nfitz (talk)06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say thattheir little brother did it, and also that theyallowed the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock.Bishonen |tålk03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
Just because,User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks.Nfitz (talk)06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Nfitz, please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believeThe Bushranger's response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than whenPonyo blocked them.Drmies (talk)15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mentionThe first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ... and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see anyWP:V orWP:DUE issues.
Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith.Vofa (talk)03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
You removed source information. The part that starts withThe ruling Mongol elites ...
@Asilvering: from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language"[219], is an ongoing concern with Vofa.Bogazicili (talk)15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources.Vofa (talk)19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.Bogazicili (talk)19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bogazicili, that's athreat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that therewas an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removeddid have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement [for these reasons]" that addresses both changes. --asilvering (talk)23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Asilvering, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute.Bogazicili (talk)07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added inTurkmens article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of theMerkit tribe which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief.Theofunny (talk)07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As forMerkit, Ialso see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. --asilvering (talk)08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case.Bogazicili (talk)08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Im going to repeat this again;
I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it.
Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @Vofa, for misreading it earlier. --asilvering (talk)19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Asilvering, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with.
Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based inWikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly.Bogazicili (talk)19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bogazicili, I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you shouldalways try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. --asilvering (talk)21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This member often vandalises, in an article aboutOirats he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism.Incalltalk12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring onOirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. --asilvering (talk)19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI.GiantSnowman14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64 is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from"CORRECT NATIONALITY!!! BRITISH!!" to"GET THE FCKING NATIONALITY RIGHT MERKINS!!! ENGLAND IS NOT A COUNTRY SINCE 1707 ACT OF UNION FFS!!! WICKEDPEDIA". They have been warned inSeptember 2024 andtwice inDecember 2024. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally includingthis edit summary warning, which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could arguethis user talk space edit violated their warning).Graham87 (talk)15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and thenthis edit falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent.Cullen328 (talk)19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not a bot and not spamming, you just keepWP:HOUNDING me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer fromWP:OWN and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spamAssume_good_faith on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Wikipedia and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that.John40332 (talk)09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it tothe reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding.Phil Bridger (talk)18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
It is reliable and listed with otherrespectable publishers, it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of theNational Library Collections,WorldCat.org shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided heWP:OWN Wikipedia. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly whatWP:SOURCEDEF suggests doing.John40332 (talk)18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were toCharlie Siem andSasha Siem. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems likeWP:REFSPAM.CodeTalker (talk)19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sitesdiff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed minediff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music.John40332 (talk)19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking toany commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work.Phil Bridger (talk)19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
User:COIBot has compiled a page,Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website?LizRead!Talk!02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Because it's a valid source according to:
WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
WP:SOURCEDEF - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
WP:PUBLISHED - "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."
Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write"kill yourself", I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously.John40332 (talk)07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? --Michael Bednarek (talk)08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves.John40332 (talk)08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor.LizRead!Talk!09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
There's no dispute, it's a reliable source anduser:CurryTime7-24 makes a fuss about it because of hisWP:OWN syndrome and potentialWP:COI with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invokedWP:RS to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as referencesonly to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (1,2,3,4,5, etc).CodeTalker (talk)01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Wikipedia.
When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra"diff that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Wikipedia, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinoisdiff, which CurryTime decided to remove too.
I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as perWP:RS, if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example ofWP:HUNT, first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity.John40332 (talk)08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the linkwith the same phrasing as on the other edits where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now.Phil Bridger (talk)20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me tokill myself on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension.John40332 (talk)08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The only consensus is yourWP:OWN syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it.
You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ?John40332 (talk)18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No,John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there isclear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be?Cullen328 (talk)18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, then.John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formaledit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read theGuide to appealing blocks.Cullen328 (talk)19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Let me quote Wikipedia's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime'sWP:COI andWP:OWN made him start this issue.John40332 (talk)19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD ([226][227]), launchinga SPI afterwards. They also made several promotional edits:[228][229][230]. Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username.Janhrach (talk)14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information aboutMuzaffarpur
UserUser:Muzaffarpur1947 has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard.
This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for examplehere andhere), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for examplehere). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. --LWGtalk18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method.Simonm223 (talk)18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources likeThe Express Tribune,Dunya News,Daily Times fromAkhri Baar. He also removed the list fromExpress Entertainment. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Wikipedia users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film fromPakistan andIndia. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you— Precedingunsigned comment added byOpnicarter (talk •contribs)18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Opnicarter, you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Wikipedia works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere.LizRead!Talk!18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with aWP:TROUT to the filer.Dclemens1971 (talk)18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk)19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion.Reader of Information (talk)19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this.Westwind273 (talk)17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to beArchive1175#Incivility in Jeju Air, but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban.
I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--Jasper Deng(talk)19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories intoRacism in the United Kingdom? They have been warned several times (here,here,here andhere). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such asthis, into the article, including in the ledehere. Then there was some edit warringhere,here andhere. Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the articlehere,here,here andhere. The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs.Lewisguile (talk)19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting.331dot (talk)17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments.Phil Bridger (talk)17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
(Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins.Knitsey (talk)17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you.Lavi edits stuff (talk)17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I've placed a three-month{{anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate.~ ToBeFree (talk)18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit warring on US politicians around theGaza genocide
The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered.StarMississippi04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just reverted TLoM's most recentedit,has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements. when the source saysvetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N. Thethree ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violateWP:NPOV. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs.Schazjmd(talk)21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. CheersThe Lord of Misrule (talk)21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation ofWP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me).~ ToBeFree (talk)21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP persistently removing sourced content.
133.209.194.43 has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articlesEnjo kōsai,Uniform fetishism,Burusera,JK business where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they haveWP:EDITWARred on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they areWP:NOTHERE. Inthis edit they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ----D'n'B-📞 --19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography.LizRead!Talk!04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples:this edit summary is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults.pretty much the same thing here. I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. --D'n'B-📞 --06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despiteWP:AIRPORT-CONTENT andWP:V. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for examplethese edits on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. Andhere where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.
Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time.Cullen328 (talk)17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources.Canterbury Tailtalk17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents).voorts (talk/contributions)17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Single purpose accountNicolasTn(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is reverting again[240]. They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits[241] but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution.Previous ANI.Vacosea (talk)23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded atTalk:Amdo, why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, tryWP:DRN? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening.LizRead!Talk!02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately.LizRead!Talk!02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article.Vacosea (talk)20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary wasStop discriminating by violating Wikipedia rules. when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts.TiggerJay(talk)05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hellenic Rebel , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research.
Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits.[249]
User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits[250] but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning.[251]
Quite honestly I think this is a case ofWP:IDHT. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't[252][253] and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons.[254]Rambling Rambler (talk)19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at thepage history. The administratorlocked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus? P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying.Hellenic Rebel (talk)19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal.Hellenic Rebel (talk)19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware,repeatedly, of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material.
@Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say.WP:IDHT: Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint longafter community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise.The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position.Hellenic Rebel (talk)20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You were linkedWP:ONUS during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it.[255]
So you are aware of it, which bluntly states:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus.
@Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Wikipedia policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion.Hellenic Rebel (talk)20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included.
Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well.[256][257]Rambling Rambler (talk)20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that isad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks?Hellenic Rebel (talk)21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct.
The policy, which I quoted for your benefit,literally says the onus is on the person who wants toinclude the disputed contentwhich is you. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it.Rambling Rambler (talk)21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original.Hellenic Rebel (talk)21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone.[258] It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did.77.49.204.122 (talk)20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, youmust include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. —The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPsstand" for the party...Hellenic Rebel (talk)21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this isWP:OR.Rambling Rambler (talk)21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here.StarMississippi02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:
Casting aspersions without evidence:
GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
For instance, accusations of usingChatGPT to generate responses without concrete proof.
Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle ofAssume Good Faith.
Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:
The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.
Wikipedia encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.
As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Wikipedia's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.
I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violatingWP:NPA orWP:ASPERSIONS. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.
If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Wikipedia contributors.
The discussion I raised was atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Footballnerd2007, now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.
In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion.GiantSnowman12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is aspectacularly bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit.Black Kite (talk)12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of usingChatGPT to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted.Phil Bridger (talk)12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted.GiantSnowman12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(Responding to the ping, invovled) My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago.However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstratingWP:NOTHERE behavior by very peculiar / suspiciousWP:Wikilawyering I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example ofWP:NOTHERE and failure to followWP:PG despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention.TiggerJay(talk)17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Wikipedia, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. Ravenswing12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I propose acommunity ban for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, asignificant number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massiveWP:NOTHERE time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned aboutWP:BOOMERANG and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --Yamla (talk)12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Wikipedia policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing.GiantSnowman13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Wikipedia and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Support - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 haswiped their talk page by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding toLiz's advice. They alsoedited other people's comments to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't respondedwhen I pointed this out. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't useChatGPT" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea.BugGhost🦗👻 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Update - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it.BugGhost🦗👻14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread?GiantSnowman14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(another(edit conflict) To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions.BugGhost🦗👻13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.
My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.
As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement...GiantSnowman14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN. Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail.Folly Mox (talk)13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.
FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same.GiantSnowman14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns.GiantSnowman14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were askedspecifically about Chat-GPT, however multiple times you werespecifically asked about the broad term of LLM. Your current claim of,never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty.TiggerJay(talk)17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: forFolly Mox, just to inform you there is a#MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information.CNC (talk)23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(responding toping) Withdrawing support for CBAN in light ofcandid owning up to misbehaviour combined with acceptance of mentorship byCommunityNotesContributor (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).@Footballnerd2007: I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Wikipedia is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation.Folly Mox (talk)12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society.Cullen328 (talk)18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, myguess is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk)18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. AlsoUser:GiantSnowman's numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit.Nfitz (talk)00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk aboutWP:WASTEOFTIME as we have do so, it might be worthconsidering the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia.CNC (talk)00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace.GiantSnowman16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. Ravenswing04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Abide by all policies and guidelines andlisten to advise given to you by other editors.
No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.
This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards.CNC (talk)17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editorcould be a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally thereshould be relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as aWP:MENTOR, if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Wikipedia, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles.CNC (talk)14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football.Footballnerd2007 •talk ⚽14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal.CNC (talk)14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being perWP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd.Reader of Information (talk)14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this would be aWP:LASTCHANCE offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose.CNC (talk)14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Completely not related but wanting to chime in.
I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @GiantSnowman handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @Footballnerd2007, it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer.Reader of Information (talk)14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Wikipedia. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.).Randy Kryn (talk)14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, asCommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.Phil Bridger (talk)14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement.CNC (talk)14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed?isaacl (talk)18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposedInvoluntary mentorship.CNC (talk)18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.
To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.
The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Wikipedia is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them.Phil Bridger (talk)17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ...Nfitz (talk)00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this.Folly Mox (talk)12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.) and it came back "99% human".EEng18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero.Phil Bridger (talk)19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do.Phil Bridger (talk)17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.
The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.
English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.
I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.
I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @GiantSnowman clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.
I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.
You are looking forWP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Wikipedia policy on the use of AI.GiantSnowman20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I was about to begin a reply with "Last time we tried this",[TOMATS] but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the wordsmithing.Folly Mox (talk)12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.
Please don't send mass pingnotifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Wikipedia expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own.isaacl (talk)02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further.BugGhost🦗👻07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Wikipedia copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk)12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it.Simonm223 (talk)12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor.Randy Kryn (talk)01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Support the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face whenyou get caught with your hand in a cookie jar... With that said, I do want tostrongly admonish FBN, because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For exampleI wasn’t trying to mislead anyone however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simplyThat comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase thatthey didn't use chat GPT even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that theynow realise was evasive -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement ofto justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me.TiggerJay(talk)18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP. — Masem (t)23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Only commenting on this particular angle:@Schazjmd: when dealing with fringe ideas, itis sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul ofWP:FRINGE if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. —Rhododendritestalk \\02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed:1,2,3. See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated --FMSky (talk)23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --FMSky (talk)23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
See above, Gabbard isn't even mentioned in one of the sources, which is insane and negates the need for any further discussion. This content should not be on her page & is probably the definition of a BLP violation. --FMSky (talk)
Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part.SandyGeorgia (Talk)00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected:"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --FMSky (talk)00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics.StarMississippi01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The userBouchra Filali uploadedthis image to the pageDjellaba. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124[1]). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there.Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page,Cmrc23? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Wikipedia. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit.LizRead!Talk!06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question.Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I havewarned this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the articlehistory of Ukraine both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from195.238.112.0/20 (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for examplethis edit by Smm380 andthis edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to makereverts as an IP.
In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing toadd unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this.Mellk (talk)09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits.
I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about.
Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Wikipedia’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future.
I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits.Smm380 (talk)16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seecurrent discussion on Heritage Foundation talkpage. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see[281],[282]. It seems they plan to “identify and target Wikipedia editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes."Photos of Japan (talk)17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing...BusterD (talk)17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well.EF517:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -Ad Orientem (talk)22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Beshogur, I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on.LizRead!Talk!22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation.LizRead!Talk!00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding fromUser:KMaster888
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:KMaster888 appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.
I attempted to ask about the policies around this atUser_talk:Novem_Linguae and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):
As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM (diff not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).
Following the quite hot thread atUser:Novem Linguae's page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically editedevery single article that I had edited,in reverse order (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.
The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up withquestionable,misrepresented, oredits for the sake of editing at a rate far faster than any editor could address.
I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Wikipedia so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off.KMaster888 (talk)20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been
2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Wikipedia (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged.KMaster888 (talk)21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality.KMaster888 (talk)21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.closhund/talk/22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest thatKMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding.Phil Bridger (talk)21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Wikipedia user constantly spouts falsehoods about me.KMaster888 (talk)21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?remove asshole[294]Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page?Tarlby(t) (c)21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
That was because Wikipedia's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back.KMaster888 (talk)21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care?KMaster888 (talk)21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The product of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation.KMaster888 (talk)23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI.KMaster888 (talk)23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". -The BushrangerOne ping only23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page.[302][303][304]. I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing.
TheWP:BLUDGEONING andWP:BADGERING of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –Novem Linguae(talk)23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being thatWikipedia's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off.SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Support - While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them.Rambling Rambler (talk)23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Good block and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did.StarMississippi01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Good block It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Investigating the hounding claim
Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 isWP:HOUNDING Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. Theeditor interaction analyzer suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI).Warrenmck, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –Novem Linguae(talk)23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that there are >100edits across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MAB Teahouse talk
I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do.331dot (talk)09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with{{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I protectedWikipedia talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997'sRomeo + Juliet?Shirt58 (talk) 🦘12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi
I added{{clear}} to the top of table ofList of Famicom Disk System games to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically).
However@NakhlaMan: reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space.
With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space.Shkuru Afshar (talk)04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers,Heart(talk)04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)(Non-administrator comment)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ger2024 has beenWikipedia:Edit warring and violatedWP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possiblyWP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them tonot engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Wikipedia user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring.LizRead!Talk!08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to beUser:Sunnyediting99. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to ~~~~ since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think?...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.) -Purplewowies (talk)08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW.
And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks!Sunnyediting99 (talk)13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago[309], mentioning that 7 (!) times[310][311][312][313][314][315]
According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of theWikiProject Armenia, being interested in the history ofGreater Armenia, and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions"[316], whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing.
Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot;[317]
Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging inWP:FORUM whataboutism, instead resorting toWP:HARASS, first on my talk page[318], then an article talk page[319], then their own talk page[320]. This random question about theKhojaly massacre appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section[321], the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide."
Despite being blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for[323]; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling)[324][325]
I truly tried to haveWP:GF despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simplyWP:NOTHERE. There also seems to be severeWP:CIR at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even readingWP:RS, which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times[326][327][328][329][330] before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion[331], they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common".
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@HistoryofIran clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, includingreverting mygood-faith work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @HistoryofIran is reverting back changes, saying that myhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according toWikipedia:GS/AA, while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me.
They are also dancing on the fine line of denyingKhojaly massacre, if not denying it.
As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Wikipedia doesn't affect your rights on English Wikipedia, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status?Egl7 (talk)15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward.Simonm223 (talk)15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Right, but at ANI we deal withurgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were toremove "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here.signed,Rosguilltalk16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary.Egl7 (talk)16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked.signed,Rosguilltalk16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on howyou conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine.Egl7 (talk)16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:GS/AA,The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully.signed,Rosguilltalk16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above.Egl7 (talk)16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found atWikipedia:General_sanctions/Armenia_and_Azerbaijan#Individual_sanctions and further atWP:AELOG under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list.signed,Rosguilltalk15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user.HistoryofIran (talk)16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits.Egl7 (talk)16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate.signed,Rosguilltalk16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society
obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures
promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories
The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order:
"made favourable LGBT commentary more vivid" (what?) replaces the subject's stance on homosexuality with a vague and unsourced statement about Urban Outfitters and the Hayne family.
Softens "opposes LGBT rights" to "generally opposes LGBT rights legislation". Removes the words "defamatory" from section on Gohmert's false allegations. Removes whole section on Gohmert's opposition to making lynching a hate crime.
Omits the context of Christians accepting slavery when the slaves were Muslim to make it sound like religious Americans had always been morally opposed
Hides his climate change denial, so the sentence now basically reads "Bret Stephens has an opinion on climate change". Uses summary "Removed redundancy" (it wasn't redundant).
Removes sentence on pro-slavery leanings (admittedly unsourced) and sexual exploitation of one of his slaves (sourced). Summary: "Minor grammatical / spelling errors revised."
Replaces the "various European and African influences" in the introduction with a phrase implying the music's origins were European, and that African-American influence only came later, which is untrue.
Rewords "[African-Americans'] call and response format ... wasadopted by colonial America" to say "[call and response format] ... wasalso common in colonial America".
Removes entire paragraph about African-Americans introducing the banjo to white Southerners. Further down, changes "African banjo" to just "banjo".
Summaries: "Added links to traditional folk music wikis" and "Verbiage clean-up".
Removes all mention of Sailer, backed by sources, as holding racist, white supremacist, and anti-semitic views in the introduction.
Removes description of Sailer's human biodiversity theory as pseudoscientific and racist.
Summary is "Added a link to human biodiversity" – true, but leaves out the 6,000 deleted bytes. Makes the same edit two more times, but is reverted each time.
Removes phrase calling it a disproven theory. Replaces sentence on racist origins in Western scholars with mention of Eastern scholars also promoting the theory (unsourced). Adds a phrase saying that actually, it's up for debate.
Hides the plantation's origins in slavery by renaming description from "forced-labor farm" to "farmstead". Summary: "Added link to slavery in the USA".
Edits the page again four years later, this time using VDARE's closing as an excuse to remove all mention of it. Claims it is "no longer relevant", which is a crazy argument.
The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not atWP:AIV). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning.
I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --Iiii I I I (talk)09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles.spryde |talk12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same.Phil Bridger (talk)19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
YZ357980, second complaint
I have again revertedYZ357980's insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation ofMOS:INFOBOXFLAG atSomali Armed Forces - see[332]] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor isWP:NOTHERE and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regardsBuckshot06(talk)00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and hasnever posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it isnot optional. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!!
2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted.
3.Someone (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see[333]. Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE.Buckshot06(talk)18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have alsorecently warned the user on their talk page regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:
This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned inJuly 2024, where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again,continued the same behavior. With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block.Magitroopa (talk)17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
They are adding many uses ofTemplate:Baseball year, despite the usage instructions saying that the template shouldnot be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing.Magitroopa (talk)20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@Liz: Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinkingeven more since BX's comment above:[356][357]. I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page.Magitroopa (talk)16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well.Nyttend (talk)03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.
I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecachttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriageused exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked.Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.
Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk)14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom.Insanityclown1 (talk)19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, but in this person's inention was to make Kosem be perceived as not wife, but concubine. While I do agree that all wife of monarch is also his consort, this person meant 'concubine' and I was afraid they gonna delete also other parts, when I was reffering to Kosem as sultan's wife, hence I inetrvened. English for some reason reffer to all sulatns partners as 'consorts' regardless if they are married or not, that's why it's important to highlight when consort was actually wife, like in Kosem's case.Sobek2000 (talk)15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Engage01: ad hominem personal attacks and one against many
Engage01 (talk·contribs) has been arguing to include an incredibly lengthy quote inPalisades Fire (2025). Upon my removal of the quote and suggestion to bring it to the talk page, they've begun a large-scale argument that me and most other editors that disagree with the addition of the quote as lacking competence, not understanding quality, or one-word "wrong" replies. Consensus is clearly against them but instead of coming up with actual policy-based reasons for every other editor !voting in the poll they set up (all in favor of not having the quote) they've chose to accuse us of not understanding policy or not seeing that the individual in question is important in the matter enough to deserve a long quote. They haven't been around for long, and have gotten multiple warnings for personal attack-type language in the conversation. I've been asked by them to "remove myself from the conversation" and they suggested I was "learning while you edit" while not understandingWP:DUE. I don't have time to add any diffs (all the comments are still live) except forSpecial:Diff/1268631697, them blanking their talk page, andhere a few minutes later, where they keep their argument at "I can't understand how editors can misapply "undue weight."". This could be a severe case ofWP:IDONTHEARYOU with the blanking. I'm hoping whoever sees this can at least get them to cut out their personal attacks. Cheers.Departure– (talk)19:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought I removed the quote first, but it was removed again by Departure. Nevertheless this user has made personal attacks on my User talk page as well. I posted two warningshere andhere on their talk page but Engage01 justblanked them very quickly. I wish toWP:DROPTHESTICK but this user started a new section on my talk page (linked above) to argue about "undue weight" which is something I don't recall mentioning at all in this situation.
I remember now. Imoved the quote from the body of the article to inside the citation but I had a feeling that it was only a gradual stage before it would be fully removed byWP:CONSENSUS. Thank you for bringing this to the ANI.Kire1975 (talk)19:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it.Daniel (talk)20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I know they're partially blocked from that page, but I went through their edit history and I found(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8) different diffs of them adding the quote in question into the article (at least 7 of which were after it had been removed), and I think that constitutes edit warring. They never got notice for violating 3RR but theyvery clearly did. Maybe the block from the Palisades Fire should be extended or expanded? I've seen worse sanctions for less disruption.Departure– (talk)20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing withPipera (talk·contribs). They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing.
I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.
I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also haveWP:CIR concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.
As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else.
In a series of edits from 24 to 26 Dec 2024 atRalph Basset Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on thetalk page here which got aseries of replies that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it.
On 4 Jan 2025 atEnguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archiveit says "Guy I of Ponthieu is a well-known figure who inherited the county after the death in battle of his brother, Enguerrand II, in 1053" See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim.
In a series of edits on 6 Jan 2025 atSibyl of Falaise Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. Ireverted the edits with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but wasre-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this articlehere and then a discussion on the talk page about what theysaid was a "will" of William de Falaise actually turns out to be a charter. Ipointed this out on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on thetalk page just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera atTalk:Sibyl of Falaise#Marriage and Issue claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately.
In a series of edits ending on 6 Jan 2025 Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article.
On 7 Jan 2025 atRichard de Courcy Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy.
7 Jan 2025 atWilliam de Courcy (died c. 1114) Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. Ireverted with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but wasre-reverted with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Wikipedia, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk pagehere but this has been ignored.
9/10 Jan 2025 atTalk:Sibyl of Falaise - I replyhere to a comment of theirs. Piperareverts it with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, theydelete a whole section they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violatingWP:REDACT.
I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing withPipera (talk·contribs). They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing.
I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.
I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also haveWP:CIR concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.
As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else.
In a series of edits from 24 to 26 Dec 2024 atRalph Basset Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on thetalk page here which got aseries of replies that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it.
On 4 Jan 2025 atEnguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archiveit says "Guy I of Ponthieu is a well-known figure who inherited the county after the death in battle of his brother, Enguerrand II, in 1053" See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim.
In a series of edits on 6 Jan 2025 atSibyl of Falaise Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. Ireverted the edits with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but wasre-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this articlehere and then a discussion on the talk page about what theysaid was a "will" of William de Falaise actually turns out to be a charter. Ipointed this out on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on thetalk page just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera atTalk:Sibyl of Falaise#Marriage and Issue claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately.
In a series of edits ending on 6 Jan 2025 Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article.
On 7 Jan 2025 atRichard de Courcy Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy.
Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy, and his mother was named Herleva de Bernieres. His father was Balderic 'the Teuton' and an unnamed granddaughter ofGeoffrey, Count of Eu . He was one of nine children bound by this relationship.
He actually is his son.
7 Jan 2025 atWilliam de Courcy (died c. 1114) Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. Ireverted with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but wasre-reverted with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Wikipedia, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk pagehere but this has been ignored.
21:25, 7 January 2025Piperatalkcontribs 5,529 bytes +76 Undid revision1268026529 byEaldgyth (talk) with all due respect we have this everywhere in Wikipedia, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents.undoTag:Undo
9/10 Jan 2025 atTalk:Sibyl of Falaise - I replyhere to a comment of theirs. Piperareverts it with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, theydelete a whole section they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violatingWP:REDACT.
Proceedings by Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Publication date 1919
* Eyton, in his Domesday Studies, styles this " an old legend (we can call it no more) of the Welsh Marches We cannot imagine how Henry I. could have such a niece as this Sibil ; nor can we say how Sibil de Falaise was related to William de Falaise, or why she or her descendants should have succeeded to any of his estates."Pipera (talk)21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blocktopic ban possibly per nom. I've been watching the complete palaver that isWilliam Martin, 1st Baron Martin—"his daughter Joan of which I am a descendant"!—with askance. Their talk page comments arenear incomprehensible, andmalformed and they seem to delight in... misunderstanding. Repeatedly. If as Ealdgyth suggests, the TB proves insufficient, the this can be revisited, but in the meantime, it's worth a shot.I had an edit-confliuct posting this, due to Pipera posting above. And incidentally provingthe actual point. The reply is bizarre; they seem to haveduplicated wholesale Ealdgyth's original post. They are completely incapable of communicating in a manner that is not disruptive.SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Changing my suggestion to a full block; their replies demonstrate they either don't understand what Wikipedia is for, and are unwilling to learn, or simply don't care. Either way, NOTHERE applies in spades.SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
In regard to this matter, I was restoring an earlier version of the article. listing the children legitimate, illegitimate and mistress to the children section of the article. it was not my work it was the work of others that came here circa 2006 -7 that placed this here, and it was removed.
I was told that this was an unreliable source when the work is on the American Society of Genealogists website, Baldwin is a writer of historic books. He is a valid source of information, further his work in the reference section shows some of the sources that are in the Wikipedia articles.
I was told that WikiTree is a user generate source, Wikipedia is also a user generated source.
Additionally, I was told that Alison Weir was not acceptable in the article.
Finally, other genealogical sites like WikiTree have attempted to place the children of Henry I in the right place and manner, in other incidents globally people are now adding Henry I as the father of Sybil de Falaise based on the article here at Wikipedia. She is not the niece of Henry I whichever way this is stated, in relation to William Martinhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Martin,_1st_Baron_Martin#References this has been resolved, and yet on my talk page I went into great detail about the usage of the tag in two other Wikipedia articles.
Also, I am academically qualified to read source materials like:
Robert of Torigni orTorigny (French:Robert de Torigni; c. 1110–1186), also known asRobert of the Mont (Latin:Robertus de Monte;French:Robert de Monte; also Robertus de Monte Sancti Michaelis, in reference to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel), was aNormanmonk,prior, andabbot. He is most remembered for his chronicles detailing English history of his era.
Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Wikipedia policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together.Phil Bridger (talk)21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Because I came to Wikipedia to extend articles, add new information, rolled back and not one academic response. I have been given personal opinions of which I have taken on board. I have not gone into iny article with the intent to add incorrect information to the articles. I have been adding here since 2001, and decided to come into these articles to expand them. That is my intention to do so. In the case ofHenry I of England I was adding to the Family and children section and added additional links I have not entered any other part of the article.
Sorry, I got here late. Thanks to Ealdgyth for bringing this issue here, and to all who participated. After an initial attempt at dealing with Pipera's disruptions and chaotic editing/communication pattern, I must admit I soon walked away. Thanks those with more patience than I for trying longer.Erictalk22:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to Ealdgyth for the thread. I participated sufficiently to see this was real problem, but didn't act decisively.BusterD (talk)22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent violation of established consensus on McLaren Driver Development Programme
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
McLaren Driver Development Programme is one of many motorsport-related articles that includes sections listing which racing championships drivers have won. Historically, these sections have only included season-long racing series championships, not simply the winners of notable races. However,Thfeeder,MSport1005, andRoad Atlanta Turn 5 have persistently tried to list winning theMacau Grand Prix as a "title." I have addressed this and explained the consensus multiple times, and repeatedly asked for them to return to the page to the consensus and start a discussion about changing that consensus, but all have refused and have insisted persisted with continually reverting the page.MSport1005 specifically has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks as well. All I am asking is that the page be reverted to consensus, without the one single race included as if it is a season-long championship, and then we can discuss why or why not to add it. All have refused. I don't think this ever needed to be escalated to the admins but literally everyone else involved has refused to have a simple discussion about this. I really don't understand their behavior. Personally I believe this change would significantly impact dozens of articles and would require larger discussions at the WikiProject level, but again, it does not seem like others are willing to have this discussion.Lazer-kitty (talk)17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: the relevant talk page discussion can be foundhere. No "personal attacks" were exchanged. Instead,Road Atlanta Turn 5 and I have tried to urge the user above to seek consensus peacefully instead ofmaking threats andimposing their views. The user cites an "informal consensus" but has been unable toprove its existence.
(edit conflict)Lazer-kitty, this looks like a content dispute. The steps for resolving such disputes are listed atWP:DR. I think you would find it very difficult to pursue this dispute here, but first you would needdiffs showing bad conduct by others, and your conduct would also be looked at.Phil Bridger (talk)17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Phil Bridger I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way.Lazer-kitty (talk)18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Lazer-kitty, your second comment atTalk:McLaren Driver Development Programme#Macau wasFirst off, apologize immediately for your insults above. These are completely uncalled for. There were no insults and such a rapid escalation of aggression is inexplicable. Forced apologies are worthless. Then, you described this routine and mundane content dispute as "vandalism" even though you presented no evidence of deliberate intent toobstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is required for a valid accusation of vandalism. It looks to me like you are being far too aggressive here, and so I recommend that you adopt a more collaborative attitude.Cullen328 (talk)18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that comment was in response toI kindly urge you to cut down your condescending tone and edit warring, or external measures could be taken. You don't consider that insulting? I do. I was not being condescending, I sincerely tried my best to be polite, nor was I edit warring. Literally all I want to do is be collaborative and they all refuse. I have asked for collaboration numerous times!Lazer-kitty (talk)18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
No, that's not an insult. You're talking down to other editors, which can feel condescending to them. I strongly urge you to dial it back and engage in creating a new, solid consensus around this topic. —The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Reading through the talk page is pretty bizarre - Lazer-kitty is insisting their opinion is consenus against 3 editors who disagree with them. I know nothing about motorsport but to me this is evidence that consensus is against LK, not with them as they claim. I think this earns a trout for opening this filing, the misunderstanding of the concept of consensus, and for battleground behaviour - but there's nothing here that needs admin attention.BugGhost🦗👻18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved for bullying off me this platform. Never in my life did I expect that 20 years of editing would end with being gaslit by multiple admins and editors. Really appreciate your efforts in killing this encyclopedia. My only hope is that one day someone forks Wikipedia into a new encyclopedia with competent oversight, i.e. people who can see through obvious trolling and bad faith actions, and who don't rely on aggressive tone policing to make their judgements.Lazer-kitty (talk)19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
As multiple people have pointed out, you are seriously overreacting. Your behaviour is completely disproportionate to the content dispute you are involved in. You only have yourself to look at there. If this is how you react to people disagreeing with you, you are the one with a serious problem.Tvx120:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Borgenland (talk)15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Given that2025 in the Philippines has been protected for the rest of the year, this probably isn't necessary. Also, worth noting that as p-blocks are limited to ten pages, we'd need to remove one from the block to add the 2025 page.Elli (talk |contribs)00:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DoneBusterD (talk)13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy
Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree, I made arequest on meta about this issue. --Ciseleur (talk)20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Moved fromWP:AIV
Note: forFolly Mox, just to inform you there is a#MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information.CNC (talk)23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeffed per WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk)23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
