Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Harassment by Steven1991

Hi, Steven1991 seems to have a pattern of engaging in personal attacks against multiple users, including myself. Attacks seem to generally consist of accusing us of "harassment" after some of us commented on a previous ANI post. [[1]][[2]]. User has made statements indicating that they do not plan to stop even after having been told to do so[[3]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Insanityclown1, the editor has already been blocked after they made these edits so what additional results are you looking for? Also, remember to sign your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Complaint probably isn't ripe at this point, but was concerned by his comment that made it sound like he had no intention of stopping the activities that got him banned in the first place. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at User talk:Steven1991, it seems that the person shows no indication of becoming more cooperative therefore my opinion is the person must be indeffed. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to the current block, the user was already blocked in the past for 48h for exactly same behavior. Lesson not learned, it looks like. --Altenmann >talk 17:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Altenmann the editor was blocked in 2019 for some problems [4], that was over 5 years ago and although the editor has a very sparse editing record, I don't think it should count that much when considering current blocks. I also don't know that it's "exactly same behavior" since at least from the block log the stated reason was "edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny". While edit warring has unfortunately continued. I don't see anyone has presented evidence of the editor logging out. Further using misleading edit summaries wasn't mentioned in the past and seems unlikely considering they were barely using edit summaries at the time.

While the editor did say some stuff on their talk page which was concerning, we tend to ignore some minor blowing off steam when an editor is blocked and I'm unconvinced anything they said then is really enough for a longer block. Frankly I would personally take the sexual abuse comment to be crossing the line enough for an indef, but Drmies didn't see it that way and so IMO it's not worth pursuing further.

So what matters is how they actually edit going forward. Now that their block has expired, their editor interaction seems to have restricted themselves to emptying their talk page which they're allowed to do and posting these two comments on ANI [5] [6]. I don't think either of those really cross the line sufficiently for a block.

OTOH, surprisingly this wasn't discussed previously but many of their recent (direct article) edits both before and after their block seem to clearly be within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. To articles that aren't sure but they're editing stuff which directly mentions the current war e.g. [7] and [8] and before the block [9]. They were already given a CTOP alert for the A-I conflict previously and so informed of the WP:ARBECR requirements so really should not have been making these edits.

I've directly asked them to stop [10]. If they continue to make edits which are so clearly within the A-I topic area, IMO an admin should just block them under CTOP or at least give a logged warning. These articles are generic enough that most of them don't need ECP and editors need to self regulate. And there's enough that I don't see a partial block will work. If no one is willing to do so from here, opening a WP:A/R/E case would be the simplest solution.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Continued problematic edits by User:Steven1991

Steven continues to add inflammatory and frankly superfluous language to articles while disguising them as "grammar." Such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zio%20(pejorative)&diff=prev&oldid=1247088966 here. This strikes me as an attempt to add inflammatory language unnecessarily while trying to fly under the radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not “inflammatory”. Your response does not seem to be aligned with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I don’t understand why you seem to be targeting me – there is no bad faith on my part to any extent. Steven1991 (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this user’s contribution history, they appear to have filed several complaints against multiple users over minor disputes. It raises doubts of vexatious complaints. Steven1991 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think both sides could benefit from a little more WP:AGF in this case. Insanityclown, I concur that the edit summary was misleading, and did not reflect the nature of the edits. This is an issue. As noted below, I don't think this necessitates them being deliberately deceptive. It's worth keeping an eye on, but even with the pre-block edit pattern, I don't think this one diff is enough for me to suspend WP:AGF. Do you have any more egregious examples? The few I found were all of the same "could have been a mistake" variety.

Steven, I can also see how labeling the phrasing changes as "grammar" could be a well-intentioned error. However, your addition of progressive journals like [Mosaic Magazine] adds the impression that other journals have said the same, which changes the meaning of the sentence. Similarly, adding some to make the phrase "adopted by some progressives" changes the meaning from being widely accepted to a minority, which likewise is a content, not a grammar change. Can you see how another editor may have been misled by this edit summary? For good or ill, your contributions are under a microscope now, so you should be careful that your edit summaries accurately reflect their contents.

Finally, Steven, note that WP:NPA says personal attacks are Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. (emphasis mine). Insanityclown1 provided evidence above. They may be wrong, but it's not a personal attack to be wrong. This is the appropriate place to raise concerns about an editor's behavior, and they did so with evidence. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain

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

This editor has brought MoS problems to an awful lot of film/television-related articles and never explained their edits (see this, this, and this). They continued disrupting Wikipedia even though they had been warned about these multiple times (see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Quaerens-veritatem and @Nicholas0, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This editor has been asked to provide summaries on the editor's talk page (twice by me), and has been told about the MoS, but has made multiple edits ignoring it despite warnings by other editors, all warnings without any result. This is especially problematic as the editor's edits are often reverted or are otherwise problematic. Although the editor has been editing for only a year, the editor has over 3,000 edits and should have attended to his talk page warnings and stopped disruptive edits by now. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This editor has never replied to any messages on their Talk page, so I have to assume that they have never read them. They probably don't even realize that anyone is sending them messages. I'm not sure how to contact them in another way to get their attention. Nicholas0 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

With my talk page warnings I also pinged the editor. I don't think we can assume he's not reading them versus the editor is just ignoring them. Also, the editor hasn't learned from repeated reverts. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by AssieBassie000

This AssieBassie000 (talk · contribs) was recently reported for adding unsourced information but the thread was archived with no further action. Now they are using uncivil edit summaries. See this [11] diff. --Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, the user keeps making unsourced edits [12]. Anybody taking this seriously?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is quite uncivil, but I am more concerned by the user's lack of edit summaries even on major edits(!) and the unsourced edits.

(As a side note, I think you should add more diffs to your reports, as only one diff per claim makes it difficult to evaluate whether these are chronic problems.) _WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The uncivil edit summary is block worthy, and the unsourced edits and lack of communication is also concerning. I'm not sure this rises to the level of an indefinite block though. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Also of note that I previously didn't mention:

• The editor has refactored the second most recent ANI notice, even after it was reverted with the edit summary "Do not modify other's comments".
• They haven't once used any talk page other than their own, and then only to post one response as well as the refactorings above.

_WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to block them for a week, and make it clear if problems continue they will be blocked indefinitely. But I'll wait for more opinions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, PhilKnight. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: I'm fairly certain they're a sock of User:Stricklunk880 as their editing pattern is identical. This is a long term airport disrupting sock puppeet editor I believe. See interaction history. Changing of small tagging (that shouldn't be there in the first place), overlinking and deleting native names from the article bodies. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms the sock puppetry. Indefinite block now. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. And gives me more confidence to block these accounts when I see them now. There are a few sock accounts that persistently disrupt airport articles. Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

IP persistantly readding unsourced material at Battle of Trafalgar

Please see article history here where the same IP (and in one case a different IP) has added the same unverified material a total of six times since 19 September despite edit summaries removing the material because it is unsourced. The second IP (presumably the same editor) acknowledges the addition to be WP:OR in the summary of this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Has been blocked. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Vijay bhaskara reddy k - Copyvio

Too many problematic contributions. A large set of subpar articles about various temples have been draftified in the last few hours by NPPs. No response on the talk page and there are multiple instances of copyright violations, including 20 images on Commons. WP:NOTHERE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually remove some of the copyvio he/she made on Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Temple, Nellore where he/she basically copy paste the content and I also notice he/she made a close paraphrasing in some of article he/she made, (i didn't revdel as they Earwig only show around 40%) and just copyedit it. I was considering reporting but it think it is WP:BITEY. But I did not know that the photos were copyrighted lol. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Another one here, Kothakodur Beach was tag for CSD for G11 and by plugging this in Earwig it also is a copyvio of this Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Miminity, this is a tangent but how on Earth did you get a report from Earwig? I used to use it but haven't been able to get a report since early 2024 because it is always over its limit. I'm shocked you were able to use this tool and get any information back. What's your secret? What time of day did you use it? Thanks for any information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I often use it like 8-10 UTC (which basically evening here) but sometimes I use the "use links in the page" option. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, if you uncheck the "use search engine" button, you'll be able to get it to run, since the limit only applies to google searches. They're working on making the tool log-in required, which should help with running through all our search engine credits. -- asilvering (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested block at commons c:COM:ANB#Vijay bhaskara reddy k. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment Blocked on Commons for uploading copyright violations after warning. Yann (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment Today they recreated Sri Chamundeswari Ammavari Temple Gangapatnam, Swarnala Cheruvu Nellore, Kanigiri Reservoir Buchireddypalem (original at Kanigiri Reservior Buchireddypalem), Penna Barrage Nellore (original at Penna Barage Nellore) and Survepalli Reservoir (original at Sarvepalli Reservior), all previously created by User:Perungulathore, blocked 4 days ago, and articles mass deleted. A quick checkuser for block evasion seems appropriate, especially as User:Perungulathore admitted paid COI at their user talk: "I was build up the pages belongs to Tourism places of concern area on behalf of the Government."Wikishovel (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment another copyvio on Kanigiri Reservoir Buchireddypalem copied from here. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Turns out the whole article is copied from that URL and an abstract from a predatory journal: db-g12. Wikishovel (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vijay bhaskara reddy k: turns out that was the older account. Wikishovel (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Another promo article created G11'd it --> Archaeological Museum Nellore City Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Previously created by User:Perungulathore at Archaeological Museum Nellore and Nellore District Museum, thanks, now added to the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking through his contribution twice copyvio here --> Draft:Penna Barrage Nellore copied from here and here (This one is just 99% copied) respectively Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

They just removed the copyvio notice and added a sentence I could not understand, then moved the page out of the draftspace. I have reverted the edits and move. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple different IP's constantly vandalizing the article: Battle of Barawa

Hi, as you can see here in the editing history of the article, this page has persistantly been vandalized and there will always be someone who uses different IP's or makes new accounts in order to continue this. At the moment I am writing this, the page is completely vandalized. In the last few days I have already reverted the edits of these IP users 3 times but I don't want to continue doing it in order to avoid participating in edit-warring. I tried using page protection, see here, but the response wasn't very helpful, perhaps the person who responded to my request didn't understand this situation very well. From the history of this page, even if this last Ip user is blocked, more IP's will strike again in the near future, it's very frustrating. Once again I don't want to participate in edit-warring or any activity that would break wikipedia's guidelines so I am leaving this here and hopefully an administrator will understand this issue and help me. Thanks for everything. Javext (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thewikizoomer Bludgeoning

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

Editor user:Thewikizoomer has been blugeoning other editors at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited amongst other Afds, driving editors away and stopping it coming to consensus. This is one of three articles with similar names including Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited and Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited that were sent to Afd after a merge discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited was opened and failed. The editor bludgeoned folk there, was warned. The merge never got anywhere. The articles were then moved to Afd to get a better consensus. However, the editor is bludgeoning folk there as well, was warned at Afd, but still doing it which is stalling the discussion on them as well. I'd like a couple of weeks of clear discussion so it can come to a consensus without interference. The editor has made his point clearly in all three Afds. Can somebody have a chat with the editor. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It's not bludgeoning.

I never said a single point again and again. My discussion lead to clearing misunderstanding that took place.

Most importantly, my inputs may have also made it clear to users unfamiliar with the subject that they are different companies.

And also my inputs were civil, reasonable, and much needed for reaching consensus. The discussions available at Afds are self explanatory to this.

Also the user @Scope creep may note "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." as mentioned in WP:BLUD.

If anything is undesirable here, that is trying to create hostility by using words such as "one more comment and I'll take you to WP:ANI" like an involved user said here which doesn't appear to be a comment to be made on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

It's unreasonable to says it is bludgeoning. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Also I can't help it if there are no the merge proposal lead nowhere due to lack of participation. I can't be blamed for that. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You're literally aggressively responding to every single comment, sometimes multiple times. These links read like you're clearly trying to dominate the conversation per WP:BLUDGEON. Responding to people with things like "so according to me it doesn't make sense" and "it's still unfair" are not helpful or substantive. Make all your points and leave others to make theirs and let the closer evaluate consensus. An ANI warning was fair at this point, though I don't think action needs to be taken if you actually back off and quit trying to be the grand inquisitor of this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

My intent was never to be aggressive or dominate, the intent was to clear misunderstandings and nothing else as most users may not be aware of how Indian Power Sector is structured or work, so yeah, let us let the closer evaluate the consensus. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — I find Thewikizoomer's behaviour to be very problematic, for example they responded to scope_creep's comments with the exact same comment beginning with "Oppose merge all" in bold despite them already voting [13] Constant badgering[14][15][16][17]. Accusing scope_creep[18] of personally attacking them when there was nothing in their reply that could be considered as such [19].Their recent edits where they moved Pune airport to Jagadguru Sant Tukaram Maharaj Airport[20], as well as renaming mentions of it on different articles [21][22][23][24][25][26], in spite of the fact it is not the official name yet, let a common one[27]. Their mass merging proposals of NTPC building articles are problematic as well. [28][29] Especially when the rationale for it is seemingly lacking in any actual policy. "Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have separate article, All plants are owned by one company". They have nominated articles[30][31] created by @CharlieMehta: who voted oppose on the original Afd, in their reply to Thewikizoomer they said[32]:"I have noticed your actions on the NTPC Power Plant pages I created as per WP:NBUILDING rule. This seems to be driven by a sense of vengeance". Since this report was filed, they have been mass welcoming new users despite some of those users having zero edits[33][34][35][36], I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to bury their edit history in order to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to state that Thewikizoomer is aware of CT IPA. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcoming this user with an obvious inappropriate name and thanking them for their non-existent contributions...then reporting them to UAA a mere minute later shows we may have a WP:CIR case here. Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I welcome new users when I have time to do so. Also being a user with over 5000 edits, it would be very dumb of me to think that this welcoming of users will "bury" my edit history. The welcoming of users is done as my everyday interest and nothing else.

To other mentions, I think I've already responded in respective replies. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer: You haven't addressed any of the issues that have been pointed out by me and MrSchimpf. You say that "I welcome new users when I have time to do so" but this does not address why you welcomed users that have made zero edits to this site. As WP:WELCOMING clearly states "welcome new users who have already made constructive edits". Starting welcoming new users right after proposing merger of over 30 articles [37][38] does give an impression of burying edit history.

You haven't explained why you moved Pune airport to Jagadguru Sant Tukaram Maharaj Airport , when no such name change has occurred yet[39]. And even if the name change occurred, it would still be disruptive to move that page, see WP:OFFICIALNAME.

How do you explain your blanket merge proposals of NTPC power station articles[40], especially when you have proposed multiple of them to be merged within a single minute [41][42][43]. I don't think that short window of time is enough for you to decide whether an article should be merged or not. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed all of them and before-hand and nominated for merger. I'm not aware of WP:WELCOMING, now I am. Pune airport name change did occur and citations can be found too in the article, I added more than 1 citation regarding name change. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That is pure disinformation. No name change has occurred so far. Which source are you talking about? Ratnahastin (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Pure disinformation? This and this. Cited in the article. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Citation Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The source noted "The decision was taken at a state cabinet meeting, an official said, adding the proposal will be sent to the Centre."[44] The fact you have misinterpreted and misrepresented these sources to portray an approval of a proposal as an actual rename serves as a testament to your WP:CIR issues. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The proposal was accepted by MOS for Civil Aviation. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Show me where the central government approved the name. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought MOS for Civil Aviation is the approving authority so my bad. The approving authority is central cabinet. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thewikizoomer, before this discussion snowballs into sanctions, can you stop participating in these identified AFDs? I'm sure you have already made your opinions known at this point. But this step would be a start in curbing some of your behavior which has been identified as problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I made my points. So yes, I'll stop any further comments/edits on the said AFDs. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Any issues other than WP:BLUD, use appropriate forum. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Thewikizoomer

After checking diffs presented by Ratnahastin [45][46][47] and reviewing Thewikizoomer's behaviour in this thread, especially comments such as this Comment: Any issues other than WP:BLUD, use appropriate forum when this board is exactly for highlighting a user's problematic behaviour. And that he is still continuing to misrepresent sources in order to defend his disruptive page move.[48][49] This was after he received warnings for undiscussed page moves [50][51]. He made a page move request today by citing that the target name was more popular in Google books ngram, when in reality it's the opposite. [52] This blatant misrepresentation has shown us that he has serious WP:CIR issues and is causing alot of problems in ARBIPA topic area. Therefore, I propose that Thewikizoomer be topic banned from all articles related to ARBIPA (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) broadly construed. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, clearly a net negative in this topic area. They are only creating more work for others to clean up. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Discussion about the recent move discussion is still ongoing - Also have a look . I advice User:Georgethedragonslayer to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment from article's subject

• Royal National Institute of Blind People

I have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry into, amongst other things sexual abuse of the charity's beneficiaries at an RNIB facility in Coventry. The content is supported by national news outlets considered reliable for contentious statements;

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

Since adding the content staff from the charity have contacted me via social media demanding my full name and address and when I refused to provide them with this information gangs of Police officers have been showing up at my house banging on my door in the middle of the night waking up the whole street and when they didn't get a response they went to my sick elderly parent's house and woke them up too. I believe the article's subject is weaponising the Online Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary. What steps can be taken to de-escalate this matter while preserving the article's independense and objectivity? What legal rights do I have as a content creator on this platform?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite: since you have no personal information on your user page, how is it the charity could have possibly found you on social media? How would the police be coming to your door? As far as "weaponising" the Online Safety act goes, the information about the inquiry appears not merely to be in the article, but dominates it. The article's "independence" and objectivity does not now seem to be at stake. As far as what dealings you and your family might have with UK law enforcement, that's not part of Wikipedia's remit, nor does the WMF have any authority over that. Ravenswing 10:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Any number of ways, it's a small country where everyone knows everyone.

In terms of due weight. I mean, it's difficult to balance the POV when the secondary coverage of the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since with the possible exception of election accessibility. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 10:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If the situation is precisely as you claim (@Headhitter: have you had a similar experience?), foundation:Legal:Community Health Legal Defense Program may be of use. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You are underestimating how much information a dedicated person can find about a person online. One photo can compromise location, one shared username(or even email) could expose private accounts, email and some money is all that is necessary to reveal personal information collected by data brokers. I deliberately performed a clean start for this reason, 'ca' is basically unsearchable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Succinctly, see https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/support-and-safety/dealing-with-online-harassment-communication-best-practices/what-kind-of-support-can-the-wikimedia-foundation-offer

Generally on Wikipedia here, as long as there is no legal threats on the platform, there is nothing much we can do. Even if there is, it would likely result in a block on that account making the threat. As for your offline personality being known, there's nothing much we can do. You may have to seek legal advice on your own. – robertsky (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. As a Brit myself, I am unconvinced by "it's a small country where everyone knows everyone." I am certainly not on friendly terms with every single one of the other 69 million people on these isles. Regardless, about the article - that section dominating an article for a 156-year old charity is massively WP:UNDUE and needs to get trimmed significantly. It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead either. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. By a Brit who actually lives in Coventry. Narky Blert (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

And thirded. I have never seen the UK described like that, except by very ignorant people from other countries who were disappointed that I didn't know Prince Charles (as he then was) personally. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be more believable if one comes from a smaller country like myself, but even then, I wouldn't know everyone in this 42km-long island, neither do I expect everyone to know me. – robertsky (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

And really, it's not believable at all. Only in lurid fiction and tabloid fantasies can one find omniscient charities who can mobilize squads of brownshirts at the drop of an utterly unremarkable username. We're being BSed here. Ravenswing 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; I couldn't even tell you if banging on my door in the middle of the night was waking up the whole street. Checking the article's history, I find I have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry is not the whole story; GDX420 also deleted much positive content.[57] Expostulating about the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since (above, albeit slightly qualified) and an edit summary about Alton Towers for nonces[58] adds a flavour of WP:RGW. NebY (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Honestly it seems like GDX420 is determined to just turn the entire article into a hit piece against the RNIB, and their edit history does show that perhaps they're a little too obsessed with doing so. Does the scandal have a place, yes it does. Does it deserve to override everything else and even delete general information from the lead, absolutely not. I'd suggest GDX420 is outright blocked from the page and everyone else gets involved in resetting it and rebalancing the article and removing undue. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Whether or not off-wiki events have occurred as described, GDX420's description of their stance – "I believe the article's subject is weaponising the Online Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary" – and edit summaries such as Anyone who disagrees is complicit with child abuse.[59] don't indicate someone who can edit the article collaboratively and in accord with WP:NPOV. NebY (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that particular edit-summary and on that alone I have partially blocked GDX420 from the article. If I'd seen it at the time, that block might well have been site-wide. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite I think topic banning GDX420 from attempting to investigate or fix COI editing would be a reasonable step here, since a lot of the disruption seems to stem from their belief that this article is being edited by COI editors. They have had issues with lacking the competence to properly deal with paid editing in the past, resulting in two previous ANI threads [60] [61] and their previous block. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Positive content written in an unencyclopaedic tone and sourced to the organisation's website? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this content that was removed unencyclopaedic and inappropriately sourced? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

In 1914, the organisation relocated to larger premises in Great Portland Street and changed its name to The National Institute for the Blind, or NIB, to reflect its status as a national body involved in all aspects of the welfare of blind people. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The police banged on your door in the middle of the night, didn't bring any tools to forcibly enter, just left after waking up the entire street, and then went to your parents' house to ... mosey around? Pull the other one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

References

User:MuhammadNoorAlHasimi: Possible compromised account

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

---

User:MuhammadNoorAlHasimi have been a constructive editor on death-related topics from 2022-2023. However, after a year of inactivity, the account has returned and are disruptively editing and vandalising Skibidi Toilet and 'brain rot' adjacent topics, popular with Gen Alpha. See Special:Contributions/MuhammadNoorAlHasimi. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Iv reported to AIV as a possible compromised account LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

And I've blocked it indefinitely with a note in the block log. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Saynotozionism12345 - WP:NOTHERE new editor

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

---

This new editor's username and user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saynotozionism12345) features strong language and aspersion casting that show they are not probably here for building an encyclopedia. ABHammad (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

They're compiling a list of users to harass. They gotta go. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I reported it for UAA and tagging the userpage for CSD Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be time to remove talk page access too. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TPA removal would likely be wise Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 13:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the blocking admin. @Zzuuzz:. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TPA have been REVOKED Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 13:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruption by CrashLandingNew

Looking at his block log, one would have expected him to improve but unfortunately continues his WP:DE.

Yesterday, he changed the text of an article by misrepresentation the source and used a misleading edit summary.[62]

Today, he went to edit war with me by falsifying my edits as "vandalism" contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[63] Evidently he is falsely terming productive edits as "vandalism" for weeks now. [64] ZDX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently User:ZDX hasn't learned anything from his own block log. He deleted my citations on the page mentioned above and pasted his own POV without any reasoning. This user has no idea about Indian elections and appointment of office bearers it seems. My edits on the page speak for themself, I have added proper citations and reasoning only to be removed by this user because he wants to paste his POV, his edit summaries summarize his MO, he believes something and wants to paste them here. For instance, he believes a CM/Chief Executive, appointed after the elections was the leader in an election by default even when he didn't participate in the elections under discussion in any capacity. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that CrashLanding should be sanctioned for attacking constructive edits as "Vandalism" even after this report.[65] Ratnahastin (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • User:Ratnahastin, why aren't you discussing this on the talk page? User:CrashLandingNew, have you learned nothing about edit warring yet? Because you are edit warring on 2005_Haryana_Legislative_Assembly_election. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Talk page discussion is ongoing. I responded there. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • CrashLanding, not vandalism. The next admin who looks at this and your block log might well block you for a long time. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

    Let alone the tedious WP:DABLINK error introduced in that edit. Not knowing the topic, I had to waste a couple of minutes fixing it. Some editors seem never to check their links. Narky Blert (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

    • He recently reverted User:RatnaHastin's edit yesterday and this was after I reported the incident here, [66]. The sources he is referring to do not say that Bhajan Lal was a leader, that source is calling both Hooda and Bhajan Lal as CM candidates.
    • On 8th September he claimed party's president is leader, later I reverted his edit because there was no proper source mentioned. [67], isn't his claim is WP:OR? The sources he has added there are saying something different from what is written there.
    • Now yesterday again he reverted his edit on that page, I tried using the talk page but instead of participating, he reverted those edits. [68]

    ZDX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Impru20 and icons

• Impru20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First of all, I just want to say that it looks like this user does a lot of good work on articles here, and I'm a bit saddened to come here for something so silly.

This began when I changed some icons on Spanish elections pages from to , from to , and from to (diff) – this made almost no visual difference and the latter are templates that include alt text, which is necessary for functional icons. Impru20 reverted my edits with no explanation, so I went to his talk page to discuss. There, he accused me of revert[ing] a stable version with no explanation whatsoever (diff). A discussion that was not particularly productive ensued, and I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency, and I was concerned about functional icons with no alt text. Impru20 reverted all of my edits with the edit summary reverted consciously bad-faith edit conducted in the middle of a discussion. Due to the masive nature of this, it could be considered as disruptive (diff). I consider consciously bad-faith to be a personal attack. I raised this point on his talk page, and he continued to be quite uncivil in his replies, warning me about WP:BOOMERANG (diff).

Yesterday, I restored my edits (which, as I have stressed to Impru20, were necessary to comply with WP:ACCESS). Impru again mass-reverted with the summary Reverting unconsensuated edit. Also, waiting some time to enforce a change deliberately avoiding the discussion on the issue is not a good practice. Doing it massively through hundreds of articles after being warned against it is also not a good practice (diff – he did introduce alt text in the second round of mass reverts, but it is not particularly helpful, as it describes the appearance of the icons instead of what they mean). His behavior over such a minor change makes me think that WP:OWN may be an issue here. Both of his mass reverts have made Wikipedia less accessible, and his personal attacks and incivility in his summaries and on his talk page are unbecoming of an editor of his experience, and should be addressed. WMSR (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency How could you possibly think this action would be seen as anything other than a provocative edit that sends a clear "fuck you" message to the other editor? Since you took this action in the middle of a discussion, how exactly are you going to argue that it was not disruptive? The implication that your actions were perfectly innocent and in good faith, and Impru's reaction unpredictable and unreasonable, is offensively disingenuous. Your second message on Impru's talkpage was to accuse them of WP:OWN.

You may have a good point here about accessibility issues, but from a behavioral standpoint, it's not Impru's behavior that I find concerning. Why did you not start a discussion at the article talkpage? Why did you not seek broader consensus? Why did you decide to edit war, ignore Impru's concerns, and then open an ANI report? Being right on content doesn't excuse poor behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Grandpallama in almost all respects. This is a classic example of WP dispute generation, which makes me sad. The only points I would add to his review are:

• They're both edit-warring using JWB. I assume, like AWB, that this could theoretically be grounds for removing JWB from both of their toolbelts? I'm not necessarily advocating for that, so much as trying to emphasize to both that they should not continue down this path.
• While I do agree that WMSR is "more" responsible for this conflict, I think Impru20 could have helped by not responding to minor hostility with more hostility, and not responded to a misues of JWB with a misuse of JWB.
• I don't suppose that the two editors could recognize they both acted imperfectly, that they're both long term experienced good faith editors, and just agree to start all over again? A do-over? A calm, respectful (friendly would be great, but probably asking too much - unless they want to give me a pleasant surprise) discussion to truly understand each other, if necessary followed by a 3rd opinion or other dispute resolution method?

Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Accessibility alone does not justify such a behaviour, but even then: I was not even against solving those issues! You will be able to check that from my talk page discussion, in which I actually proposed WMSR compromise solutions that maintained both the icons and achieved accessibility. They could have contested them, but they basically refused to even discuss them, instead resorting to mass-editing and to attack me on my user talk page. Yeah, I ended up warning WMSR of WP:BOOMERANG along with a profound sense of frustration after they had suggested bringing this to ANI ([69]).

The issue here is that WMSR was openly provocative and aggressive from the very beginning. They have never attempted to seek a compromise despite multiple requests, they never explained why the compromise solution that I proposed was unacceptable (spoiler: it wasn't) and their only course of action was to 1) adopt an aggressive behaviour in my talk page with outright attacks (their first reply to my was to accuse me of WP:OWNing just because I disagreed with their initial few edits), 2) to keep linking random wiki policies in an exercise of wikilawyering, 3) once these two failed, to resort to massively edit hundreds of articles despite being well aware that these edits would be contested (since this came when the discussion had started and was well underday), and 4) to threaten me with bringing this to ANI should I did not accept their edits. Heck, their initial response to my initial complaint to their massive edits was to tell me that "this is going nowhere, so I have made hundreds of edits and if you disagree with them just seek recourse elsewhere" (hinting at admin intervention at [70], then more openly at [71]). So you have a content dispute and, instead of trying to solve it amicably, you just attempt to intimidate the other user and force admin intervention even when ANI is not for such kind of disputes?

I acknowledge that I did not take the OWN accusation well. That was basically WMSR's second comment in the discussion and came after I inquired them on their reasoning for their edits. I cannot see how on Earth this kind of behaviour could be seen as any other than disruptive from that point onwards, but particularly from the moment that WMSR disengaged from the discussion to mass-edit hundreds of articles (which I then reverted back to their original versions).

The "I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency" claim is (sorry) an absurd claim. WMSR should know that making literally hundreds of edits at once while a discussion is ongoing is not a good-faith course of action. Plus, WMSR just did this again less than 24 hours ago, after having left the discussion for two weeks and leaving my last comment unanswered (which was basically the specific, last proposal for a compromise solution). How can anyone even think of this being done innocently and thinking that this would "asuage" any concern?

Btw, my last edits on all of those articles (which involved reverting WMSR second provocative mass-editing) did actually implement accessibility according to WP:ACCESS (or, at the very least, the best I could do it), by taking the advantage of the reverting to implement the compromise solution that they just refused to even address in my talk page. I seriously don't understand what their motives are here, but it's fairly obvious that WP:BOOMERANG applies here. Impru20^talk 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This may not resolve the JWB misuse during the edit war, but I personally believe that WMSR is very much experiencing a WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps this conversation here is enough to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Conyo14 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, and on Floquenbeam's remarks: I don't want to use JWB to resolve the dispute. I only had to in this case because that was the only mean of undoing such massive changes so swiftly. I am more than willing to voluntarily refrain from using it in this dispute. Even then, that should not hide that WMSR has used it in a provocative and aggressive way twice, both of them without previous notice and under threats of ANI intervention if those edits were contested (as I linked above; threats that have ultimately materialized today), so it's probably them who should commit themselves to stop doing this. Impru20^talk 20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

So I guess that's a "no". Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a "yes" (on my part) to not use JWB again in this dispute, and a "no" in allowing WMSR free use of it as if nothing had happened, seeing how that could spark issues in further situations in which they come across content disputes. Using JWB to "solve" a content dispute by editing hundreds of articles so that the issue seems "locked" by making it seemingly impossible for the other part to restore them manually, then threaten the other part to refrain from using JWB to revert them or else they will be brought to ANI, is not how JWB is intended to be used. Not saying that I will press for that (on my part, I just find this highly disruptive and frustrating). Impru20^talk 20:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we got your point now. You may want to take some time away from this. WMSR may receive a WP:TROUT for his actions here. If he continues you may want to return and justice will be swiftly given. Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am dropping the stick here, thank you. Impru20^talk 20:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I am definitely seeing where my behavior was in the wrong. Content-wise, I still do not understand the dispute. That said, I definitely failed to take the high road, and I see that I misused JWB in the process. This definitely calls for a  Self-trout. I really would value an opportunity for a "do-over" and a second opinion on the content dispute at hand. Impru20, I'm sorry for all the stress I've caused. WMSR (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are under discretionary sanctions. I alerted both editors. I was going to remove their access to AWB/JWB, too, but it looks like the drama has died down, even if only slightly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, so are election results now, right? I know almost nothing about that recent historical elections arbcom case, but is there any reason to believe one of these two editors is involved in (hang on while I look up the term used in the case) "Election Twitter"? Results of historical national and sub-national elections are now a contentious topic. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Added alerts for that, too. I don't really know anything about Twitter, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Broadcastwitnessnews92 competence issues

Broadcastwitnessnews92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started editing Wikipedia today, and has already garnered multiple warnings, including final warnings, regarding vandalism and page hijacking. All their edits have been reverted. When I look at the edits, I don't see vandalism or hijacking, just a lack of understanding of the topic (perhaps a lack of understanding of the English language) and misguided attempts at improving the page. The editor has not once stopped to respond to any of the notices.

For example, in Special:Diff/1247550796, the editor added, after "The vaginal opening and the urethral opening are only visible when the labia minora are parted.", the following completely wrong information: "The primary function of this system is to produce, maintain, and transport sperm and protective fluid (semen)."

And, in Special:Diff/1247481033, "For example, nudity in the context of naturism would normally be regarded as non-sexual. Ensure the equation is in standard form, which means all terms are on one side of the equation set equal to zero.", where the italicized content is the addition by this editor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll block them if they keep editing without responding. I've left one final message on their talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked (by Discospinster) Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024 admin help needed

I struck out a couple of comments in that discussion made in violation of WP:ARBPIA (specifically WP:ARBECR). One of the comments struck out was from an IP that a participant, DaringDonna, called out as antisemitic blood libel, and she would like to have the comment removed. I don't know exactly what to do here, I am afraid going further than striking out for ARBECR (for example, collapsing or {{redacted}} it), would not be in line with how involved editors should act in discussions (yes I am technically involved simply by proposing the move), I am also aware of WP:NPA which prevents most of these serious aspersions. Can an administrator investigate and take an appropriate decision? Such claims are very very serious and especially casting doubt on WP:AGF, unless if it is very obvious to most editors; if the IP comment needs to be removed and WP:RevDel'd, so be it. If further page restrictions or personal sanctions or warnings or no action (even against me) is needed, so be it. But I feel there needs to be more moderation as I have seen a lot of slow reactive not proactive measures in these topic areas. Awesome Aasim 22:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim ECR is a bright-line rule in ARBPIA, so I don't think you'd be out of line collapsing/removing the comment entirely - just make sure it's applied universally. IPs and non-XC editors aren't allowed to contribute anything in the area besides edit requests, so votes on a move aren't allowed. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I thought. But I already struck that comment out. It wouldn't hurt to collapse the replies to the ECR violating comment? Awesome Aasim 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the comment along with the discussion that resulted. Someone else is free to remove all other comments which violate ARBECR but I don't think we need consistency. If a comment violates ARBECR and is clearly causing disruption it's reasonable it might be treated different. I mean under the old ARBECR not all comments from non EC editors would be a violation but disruptive ones would be. (And even now with edit requests which this clearly wasn't, disruptive ones are a problem but otherwise they are okay.) Alternatively you could say we are being consistent in removing all disruptive ARBECR violating comments. (I didn't remove any other comment but if someone points out something else equally problematic I'm happy to. The only other struck comment I noticed doesn't seem to be similarly problematic.) I'd note that the claim the IP didn't provide a source isn't entirely true, they did [72] but I don't think Mohamed Kleit's opinion is an RS so the OP did fail to provide an RS. As for the other comments in the thread that I removed while they might not be a violation by themselves and I'm not going to revert if someone reinstates them; it seems to me removing the disputed comment but leaving the discussion it spawned just generates more confusion plus risks drawing attention to the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that we don't get any more ARBECR after the RM expires. Awesome Aasim 05:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the discussion. Just to clarify, I did not say there was no source, I said there was no RS (reliable source). I did look it up before I made my comment, and saw who exactly the IP was quoting. Not someone who could be considered reliable as a source. Thanks again. Removing the comment is a win for sanity at Wikipedia. DaringDonna (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Another kind-of related thing: There appear to be several derailments in the RM. Can those be collapsed? Thanks. Awesome Aasim 23:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Alimusa893 promotional spam account, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Alimusa893 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their edits, as far back as 2020 and more recently in the last day or two, appear to be copy-pasted promotional nonsense, clearly not building an encyclopedia, sometimes vandalizing existing text along the way: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. Based on a quick Google search, I think at least some of the copied text can be found social media or elsewhere on the web, which might raise copyvio issues (though it may be the user's own promotional material posted elsewhere). R Prazeres (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That was swift. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User conduct

I am writing to formally report the disruptive behavior exhibited by user during the ongoing RFC process. Despite the warning, they continues to undermine the purpose of the RFC by repeatedly closing the discussion: they has repeteadly derailed the RFC and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue. Preventing consensus. they has actively worked to prevent the community from reaching a wider consensus by monopolizing the discussion and dismissing opposing viewpoints. Gagging the procedure: their actions have effectively stifled the RFC process, preventing the community from having a fair and open discussion. I urge you to take immediate action to address this issue and ensure that the RFC can proceed in a productive and respectful manner. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, seriously: I should've been far less impulsive, and more willing to listen to the type of editor that can pick up all this lingo and knowledge of site procedure over the course of 30 edits made in less than a day. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a good RFC close to me. The RFC was malformed (see WP:RFCNEUTRAL) and the outcome of the discussion was obvious to anyone but you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be a practice point for me to remember to state explicitly that the RfC was malformed next time. Remsense ‥ 论 19:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably a WP:BOOMARANG situation. Very strange that DwilfaStudwell's fourth edit was to template warning an experienced user. Now this user is opening up a discussion here. This doesn't seem like a editor who is here to improve the project or work well with others. Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @DwilfaStudwell, but that looks like a good close. You'll have to accept that you're outside consensus on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You really ought to be WAY less combative if you want to collaborate with other people. If things worked like your template warnings would lead us to believe there would be very few editors left that didn't get blocked. This isn't the way to go. – 2804:F1...A5:98DF (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Emmay33

Emmay33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned about changing English spellings, but is continuing the edits. I don't know if the previous block was related to that, but a final warning or additional block may be warranted. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just flagged this at AIV. I'd given Emmay33 a final warning for repeatedly ignoring WP:ENGVAR earlier in the month, but a lot of their edits are still going against that, changing individual words in British/Indian articles to the American spelling. Seems either a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue (they've never replied on their talk page) or a competence one. Belbury (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account for a week. It had previously been blocked for a shorter time. JBW (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent attacks and provocation by Zemen

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

This is just their attacks, I could cite their disruptive edits too. Their talk page history is full of warnings [81].

• I'm sure u, like all other porsians, will resort to the saying that the word 'Kurd' is a word used for shepherd.

Focusing on my alleged ethnicity again. E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". Clearly, he means "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.

• your opinions on my edits don't 'look natural' u are too farsist

• Yeah, what I expected, these words, I know what you want, on the pretext of 'Wikipedia rules' (which I respect much) exactly what you don't want to see: 'Kurd' why don’t you go get [[Wikipedia:Wikibreak|some rest]]? nt: my talk page history, which is common mistakes made by new users, is irrelevant. and im right that youre a farsist (maybe اطلاعات) glo.

"Farsist" means "Persianist", whatever that is supposed to mean. More namecalling.

When I tried to explain to them why it was not nice to resort to namecalling ("farsist") and WP:ASPERSIONS, they instead resorted to provoking me

• good that you understood your purpose. good look

• Just wishin' you good luck? now u can end this discussion.

• ok [Laughs while eating chips ] --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked you once directly and three times indirectly to end the arguments because we won't reach a conclusion, and you don't like to see 'a word', but you kept going, that I don’t know what you want. you can just remove my edits and let me know what to do in the edit summary, not come to my talk page and arbitrarily tag just because three of my edits don't 'look neutral', which is an indictment of racism and I'm against it, I didn’t even know what you meant that time. All that aside, why is "good that you understood your purpose. good look" a bad thing? btw it's my talk page, laughing or eating chips, not your problem. Zaman (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not only what you said makes no sense, has zero diffs, and barely addresses my report. Now you're doubling down at Talk:Gordyene (in the very section I opened by asking you not continue your attacks [82]) regarding your attacks against me [83] [84]. Would appreciate if an admin would look at this, fail to see how this user is a netpositive to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say is nonsense, look I can tell you so. If you think everything I say now and in the future is 'nonsense' why don't you try to avoid me? why do you keep replying? you're almost bothering me. Zaman (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nt: I actually wrote that in porsian not poor-sian and it's a typo, I used it on my keyboard before so the system set that. I didn't write this on purpose, it's childish to blame me with that. Zaman (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Your talk page exists for other editors to communicate with you. It's neither a blog, nor a Discord chat, nor a jocular texting conversation. Ravenswing 14:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: He keeps bothering me and keeps replying to only three edits, what do you want me to do? he's annoying, and I text the way he deserves. Zaman (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zemen, you need to stop the personal attacks. Nobody 'deserves' incivility. If you wish to make amends, I suggest that you strike through the personal attacks and do not make any more. Would you be willing to do that? QwertyForest (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Still don’t know which personal attack you guys accusing me of. he called my edits 'non-neutral', simply because I tagged his language and not the other, and I told him in return that your comments are 'too persian' not following wiki rules. What is there to accuse me of here? Zaman (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zemen, placing notices like the ones you've received is a very normal thing that editors do here, to give some explanation for why they are reverting another user's edits. You need to be able to receive these notices without perceiving them as personal attacks. @HistoryofIran, you need to be able to assume good faith and try to work things out more thoroughly before threatening other editors with ANI. If they're a sockpuppet, they'll step on a rake soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that Zemen is a sockpuppet? And I was not threatening them, I was warning them, which I did after they had engaged in WP:ASPERSIONS and namecalling several times. As you can see, they're still doubling down, showing signs of being WP:NOTHERE. The worst of these attacks is no doubt "Poorsian", which is just xenophobic and has no place on this site, yet they clearly don't care. I have already tried to work out stuff with them, such as the afromentioned Talk:Gordyene, which resulted in a barrage of attacks. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the assumption; I misunderstood your comment, These don't look like "common mistakes made by new users" to me. I did read that talk page before making my initial comment, and I think you would have gotten much further with more patience. Please try to work things out, rather than further provoking editors who are already clearly upset. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"Further provoking editors who are already clearly upset"? Sorry, but really? What gives them the right to be upset? Are we just going to ignore their blatantly xenophobic (borderline racist) attacks? I am the one who should be upset here. I am just following procedure, I can't have the patience of a saint when a user is persistently attacking me and just generally disregarding our policies. You gave them a chance to strike their personal attacks, they refused and doubled down. Are there not any repercussions? Or is WP:ASPERSIONS and namecalling due to ones alleged ethnicity (my ethnicity is not disclosed on my userpage, in fact Rasht is not even a Persian city..) okay now? I hope you understand my frustation. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone has the "right" to be upset. It's a normal human emotion, and it's perfectly normal to feel that way when someone has frustrated you. Reversions are frustrating; they're upset. You feel attacked and are also upset. I can certainly understand your frustration. But neither of you are going to be much good at communicating with each other while you're both upset, and as the significantly more experienced editor, I'd expect that you know when to take a step back. I haven't looked at the sources, but given your experience, I expect you're the one who has the right of the content dispute here. Once you can explain that to the other editor without feeling needled by their response (which may be confused, or ignorant, or rude), you should try again. Engaging further right now, and getting into arguments on each other's user talk pages, is just going to make both of you more upset. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering, Zemen is persistently engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, which you and I both know is not okay. Especially not due to ones alleged ethnicity. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

And now up above Zemen is calling me childish (yet another attack) [85] Claiming "Porsian" ("Poorsian") is a "typo", which I find it hard to believe, when O and E are not even close to each other, how could the "system" possibly change those two. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran, Your interpretations are not good, I hope you think a little better. I don't have to lie to you, I've used the 'porsian' phrase before, and the system suggests that I've used it before. Zaman (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to explain how my "interpretations" are not good and what this so called "system" is, and what "Porsian" means, since it's not a synonym for Persian. I've given you more than enough WP:GF, and you have responded by attacking me. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you want from me now?? I wouldn't lie to anyone to do it for you, you apparently know nothing about the ADVKu keyboard recommendation system. Plus I didn't call you childish, but your thoughts and accusations are childish. Zaman (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely mindboggling that you can get away with so much WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok Zaman (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Im glad you wrote this comment in this way, thank you very much for letting me know that my goal was not achieved properly, thanks again! I will try to improve on this. Zaman (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Nardog / Reverting Additions Due to "Obvious" Generative AI

WITHDRAWN. I mean this with the utmost respect and without any intention of suggesting purposeful malice on the user's part. But I recently had an edit to an article reverted by this user as "obvious generative AI."

The fact is: we don't have the technology yet to determine what's AI-written and what's not, and the only people saying otherwise are snake oil salesmen. Supposed AI-writing detectors are absolutely notorious for false positives.

Just a handful of links on this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/14/prove-false-positive-ai-detection-turnitin-gptzero/

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/brightspace/2023/08/16/guidance-on-ai-detection-and-why-were-disabling-turnitins-ai-detector/

https://themarkup.org/machine-learning/2023/08/14/ai-detection-tools-falsely-accuse-international-students-of-cheating

https://www.trails.umd.edu/news/detecting-ai-may-be-impossible-thats-a-big-problem-for-teachers

https://www.turnitin.com/blog/understanding-false-positives-within-our-ai-writing-detection-capabilities

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/chatgpt-and-ai-detection-tools-the-1617850/

Colleges abound with users having to prove that they can pass the Voight-Kampff test (i.e. no, I'm not a replicant).

The technology is far too immature to be counted upon programmatically, and on your own calling users "obvious generative AI" is 'ad hominem'. If we're going through Wikipedia and somehow going to start wiping out people's edits because they are somehow "obviously" generative AI, I think it ends up having the effective result of - and again, I'm not casting aspersions on the intentions of said user - widespread vandalism.

As such, I'd highly advocate against users doing so, either sanctioned by above or on their own. MollyRealized (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You want this page, chief. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask you: how can Wikipedia editors claim to have an ability that doesn't exist yet (i.e., knowing what's AI-written and what isn't)? Whether or not there's a policy page all about it (I'm sure I could find similarly elaborate policies at every college), the fact is, this ability provably doesn't exist yet ... MollyRealized (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a few of my own: Why did you wait less than fifteen minutes after posting to Nardog's talk page to bring this to ANI? Why are you assuming that he is using a tool more technological than his own eyeballs, especially given the aforementioned lack of meaningful discussion of this with him? Why are you misleadingly comparing this to "widespread vandalism" when it appears to be a single edit? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Even though it's a popular way to debate, responding to a question with questions aren't a way of answering the initial question. MollyRealized (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then let me answer you directly: you opened this ANI thread extremely prematurely; you should have actually made a good-faith effort to discuss this with Nardog before running to ANI to get him in trouble. Moreover, you're misrepresenting his actions by implying he's on some kind of misguided crusade (with your references to going through Wikipedia and somehow going to start wiping out people's edits and widespread vandalism)--all without any diffs whatsoever--when the only recent revert I can find in Nardog's contribs that mentions LLMs is yours. I recommend you withdraw this before you get smacked by the boomerang. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me, Writ_Keeper. Thank you in advance. MollyRealized (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat. That was sage advice, but not quite a warning, from a site admin. You might notice the complete absence of support for your complaint here, which is why you're being advised that failing to drop the issue is more likely to result in a boomerang than any other outcome. Grandpallama (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I seem to have misconstrued the phrase "getting smacked", then. 17:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove your addition just because I suspected it of having been generated with an LLM, but because it wasn't written like anything you see in other articles, as pointed out on the talk page. Whether you actually used an LLM is ultimately immaterial. If you have seen the film and can write a plot, go ahead, but please actually write a plot. Nardog (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately what was inserted into the article, regardless of how it was generated, is not a plot. It's a film school student essay and interpretation. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like basically these are just ad hominems and not actually dealing with an AI problem. Now we've got some clarity as to intent. MollyRealized (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If you put that text in front of me, I'd have said it's an LLM text as well. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Me too. If it really wasn't AI, @MollyRealized, my advice is to completely rethink how you approach plot summaries. Describe the plot precisely, and avoid making claims about tone and meaning (that goes in later sections). The plot section should just be a straightforward description of the plot. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Because obvious slop is obvious. Grandpallama (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate the feedback, Asilvering, as well as the lack of hostility and positive intent. MollyRealized (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FILMPLOT is a good read of the guideline for a plot. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

To make it visible, WITHDRAWN. I don't see any other clear instruction on how to do so within your protocols. Thank you to asilvering and MM, exclusively and only, for your approach to this matter. MollyRealized (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@MollyRealized: it's expected that editors should discuss problems they have with other editors before bringing them to ANI, unless the problem is so severe that it requires immediate attention or for some other reason it's impossible to approach the editor concerned first. If you want to continue to edit here, you need to accept this and apply it going forward. This isn't hostility, it's simply what is expected from all editors on the English wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that talks of WP:Boomerang aren't generally intended as some sort of idle threat or just a way to be hostile. Instead, they are intended to warn the editors concerned because plenty of editors have found themselves blocked or otherwise gotten into trouble because by opening an ANI thread and from their responses within the thread they opened, they've revealed that they and not the editor they're complaining about was the problem. I don't think anything you did here or that was revealed about your editing is severe enough to warrant sanction, but IMO it's definitely true that it's been your approach and not Nardog's that's the real problem and that's why other editors responded as they did. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and so if editors are unable to edit productively with their fellow editors, then this is a significant problem. And yes, editors bringing their fellow editors to ANI which is a very severe measure over something which is not really a a significant problem isn't good for collaboration. And as others have said, it's hard to call the edit you are complaining about a significant problem, at most you could say the edit summary should have better explained the problem rather than just saying it was AI. The reversion itself was well justified. Further since you made no sufficient attempt to discuss it with the editor concern before bringing them to ANI, you did not give them the chance to better explain why they reverted you and fix the only possible problem with their edit. Again this isn't good for a collaborative project. You need to be able to talk to your fellow editors and take on board what they say, even when you find something they said or did annoying. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Edit the error not reading talk page

A new editor (Edit the error (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) uses the iOS mobile app to edit. Although they've only been editing since 6 September, their talk page is full of messages and warnings. They found their user page (and are using it to draft an article) but there's no sign that they've seen their talk page. Some of the messages are about copyright.

Could an admin apply a gentle mainspace block to get their attention so they read their talk page? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you know if they can read page histories? I could make a dummy edit with a link to their UTP in the summary. QwertyForest (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No clue, they're completely unresponsive. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, messages on the iOS app is a bit wikt:up in the air, so, depending on how ‘up to date’ that is, it’s anyone’s guess. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There was recently another editor also using the iOS app who didn't discover their talk page until they were blocked,[86] so I'm just guessing it's the same issue. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I wish they were responsive; I assumed WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU but I'd like to ask them if they used an LLM to create e.g. this or this. I left them a message about copying another bit from within Wikipedia but those two had some other origin. NebY (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked them from mainspace for now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Asilvering. Hopefully they'll respond on their talk page and it can be lifted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't looking promising. After their draft article on their user page was deleted, they've just started a new one (User:Edit the error). Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That was after I blocked them, and if they haven't gotten any of their talk page messages, they won't have much reason to understand why their user page spontaneously evaporated in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Either they've created that very quickly - at LLM speed - or they'd already spent time off-wiki creating a new article on a subject on which we already have one. NebY (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks very much like LLM copypasta to me. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Whilst it may, theoretically, be misuse of their user page why not put a message there, referring to the discussions and user:talk warnings - at least we know (assume?) they read their user-page. Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like editing other editors' user pages, but it seems worth a shot in this instance. I've left them a message there. Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

They've continued working on their user page, adding an image File:Mala_Beads.jpg that they've just uploaded claiming they're the copyright holder, that it's their own work and that it was created today. It's also at unsplash.com[87] as published in 2020. NebY (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

They've now deleted a {{copyvio revdel}} from that page.[88] They deleted Schazjmd's message about an hour ago but carried on editing their user page. They haven't edited their talk page. NebY (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The file's been tagged for copyvio speedy on Commons, so we might as well wait for that to happen since they keep restoring it. Obviously they saw the message about their talk page and decided to ignore it. I guess as long as they can't be disruptive in mainspace or add copyrighted content to articles, it's not an urgent problem anymore. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides the two Copyvio notices removed ([89])([90]), I’d like to add that this user has three declined AFCs. The user page is probably also good for WP:CSD#U5 if anybody fancies the inevitable edit warring. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Themmajury page move vandalism

See this move: Special:Diff/1247716582. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reversed it, but you should probably try to explain to them why their article is being deleted. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll note that I was in the process of formatting a reply when I got bombarded by a bunch of talk page notifications and emails that I couldn't clear. It's hard to figure out how to get rid of that yellow banner when the software doesn't like the location of your talk page. And then you panic/lose a lot of good faith given the new location of my user page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No kidding. I'm not going to act on Liz's warning, since I can't find the vandalism she's talking about, but I hope one of that editor's next edits is an apology and not more inventively rude vandalism, for their own sake. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The vandalism would be this deleted edit, I imagine. Anyway, blocked indefinitely for disruptive page moves and personal attacks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the ANI report (apologies for the initial brevity) that this user has previously been warned about their page move vandalism by @Liz: [91] Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IP making legal threat

73.198.81.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is threatening legal action at Category talk:Defunct computer companies based in New York (state). DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This might be a case of WP:DOLT. Even the article Ticketron acknowledges that the brand was bought from Ticketmaster and revived. Having Google pick up our categorization and mark it as defuct seems to be causing harm. We should make the changes.--v/r - TP 18:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Buying a trademark and starting a new company doesn't mean the old company didn't go defunct. Compare the situation with the Biograph Company, where somebody bought an old trademark and started a new company with the same name some 70 years later. Note that our article isn't about the new company. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and adjusted the opening sentence and lede to establish that the company has been revived re-established. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hold on. Had the company been revived? Or is someone else just using the name and mark? That's not the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm only using Wikipedia's own nomenclature; if you look at Category:Re-established companies, most entries are "some group of investors thrice removed from the original company bought out the trademark". DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Also I wrote "re-established" in the article, not "revived". Sorry for the mix-up. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Was trying to figure if it was more like Atari. Anyway nothing more to do here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IP responded to the talk warning about legal threats and then went to Talk:Ticketron and made an explicit legal threat. MrOllie (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

IP also made a legal threat against my ANI notification. For what it's worth, I tried revising the lede to mention the 2017 trademark buyout and subsequent online business but was reverted by Pemilligan. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS with a dose of xenophobia by M7md AAAA

M7md AAAA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like its national insult me and Persians day today. Such behaviour has no place on this site (or elsewhere for that matter).

• ...Clarify your double standards. This requires dispute resolution, as you are clearly an involved party.

After that comment, I asked them to remember to have WP:GF, so much for that.

• This is a joke and you are doing your utmost to corrupt the article... ...Ought I find some note about how worthless persian sources are, or how worthless persians opinions are and replace that as a citation now?.. ...Your account needs to be suspended.

After that, I reminded them of WP:GF, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. So much for that.

• You are hampering the spread of knowledge using the clunky wikipedia interface as your weapon. Your account needs to be suspended.

• I don't care who you are. I don't know who you are. I'm saying what your actions are doing. You are the hyper emotional one here, using clunky wiki interface as your weapon of abuse.

Account created on February 2021, 133 edits, majority of which have been reverted. Fail to see how they're a netpositive to this project. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User is conveniently again using selective quotations that suits their bias. "I included several references and citations, you did nothing but include a note by some guy. Ought I find some note about how worthless persian sources are." The charge of xenophobia is nonsensical as the xenophobic opinion expressed by the note that they left is being described as "worthless, meaning that an opinion saying the same thing about 'persians' would be equally worthless.

This is what was said, the note they left in place of primary sources that actually had numerical figures:

"According to Daryaee, "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This is pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars."

Even non-Arab sources were rejected for this user to suit their bias. Even if those primary sources were cited by people being cited in the main article. And I don't even know if the user is Persian or not.M7md AAAA (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious that I cut parts of the quote to only highlight your attacks (hence the "...."), which is what is the point of this report. And by all means, please show the diff that says I rejected a source because it was by an Arab, because such diff doesn't exist. All I did was mention WP:PST, which made you immediately start your attacks. Also, Touraj Daryaee is a historian (he doesn't use the word "worthless" either, more made up stuff), you're not - we base our info on academic sources, as you've already been told when I mentioned WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Yet I am clearly the "hyper emotional" one here, everyone can see your treatment towards me here [92]. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In the talk page the user refuses to include anything that doesn't agree with them I'm new to the wiki interface so I cannot use wiki as weapons of abuse as well as he can. I am not interested in engaging with a party that actively hampers knowledge. Here is the previous wiki page, Please look at and judge for yourselves. I even asked for arbitration, but the user here did not relent. The user appears to be the xenophobic here, using personal affiliation as bases. I have no knowledge of his person to base that on anything.

Prior Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247695404

I did not alter the xenophobic note that he put in place of the figure, or the figures that were there before. I fixed them as they were being cited as medieval estimates, which nonsensical. I added additional numbers and actial primary sources because I am neutral as far as what had happened, but the user here appears to act as if the article is a fact finding mission.

Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah#Estimates M7md AAAA (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

More WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Without evidence? What? How is removing numerical figures for a derogatory note acceptable ? Are all primary sources taboo on wikipedia now? Should all battles from antiquity, or even the modern era (as the figures from them too are contested) ought to be replaced by a concise offensive remark? By the logic the user is employing here, in guise of factuality, that is the case. M7md AAAA (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because I removed those poor citations per WP:PST/WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that does not make a xenophobe, using my "personal afflilation", "using clunky wiki interface as a weapon of abuse", or any of your other accusations. As for your WP:REHASH argument, again, read WP:OTHER. We're not going to ignore the policies of this website merely because you oppose them, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to constantly attack me. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the user is unable to use actual words, again utilising wiki interface as their weapon of misuse. And those citations aren't poor, they're all we have. The user is being ridiculous. M7md AAAA (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Proving what? WP:PST/WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not support removing everything to suit xenophobic tendencies. And again they're the figures being used in modern scholarship, as elaborated in the talk page. What is this nonsense? In addition their ad hominem against my contributions are baseless, they actually resulted in a new article in which they were included ( M7md AAAA (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Proving that you seem unable to interact in a consructive manner with editors who disagree with you, unable to stick to comments about the topic rather than editors and, last but not least, unable to avoid personal attacks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment : The reported editor seems unable to engage in a constructive manner when they have a disagreement with another editor, they comment on editors, not the topic and they make personal attacks. Sounds like we have nothere case here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a case of WP:BOOMERANG actually. The user conducted themselves in bad faith, not being assumed to. Again, explain yourselves, you who also aided them in their corruption of the article. The xenophobic note is contradicted by other sources; non-Arab, non-Muslim sources. Yet again this is omitted, censored, and obfuscated followed by terror tactics to scare away anyone that's after the spread of knowledge. It seems the article for the battle is being used as a springboard to cast a shadow of doubt over all Arab sources with a note, one that is utterly nonsensical by the fact that non-Arab sources use figures that are actually LESS than Non-Arab sources. M7md AAAA (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

204.116.115.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP user has been persistently vandalizing articles as well as being warned many times since, surprisingly, 2019… Raulois (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Okiyo9228 I have blocked the IP. In the future, please use WP:AIV EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Vmarkova legal threats

Vmarkovna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while logged out, in Special:Diff/1247753781, she writes As whole, this article reads: Criminally deceptive, unfounded, malicious and criminal labeling to indict murder through Wikipedia meant to be informative only. Not a neutral portrayal of a biography. Pointed to murder, written from a pointed perspective to take life. Non neutral igniting violence in hate crime. This hate crime is punishable by a court of law through fine/imprisonment. Hate crime taking a human beings life through resolved suicide of mot resolved. It is obviously this user, as the extensive edits are the same as previously posted by her on João Teixeira de Faria, e.g., Special:Diff/1247575603.

See her autobiography Draft:Victoria Markovna for more perspective. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Vmarkovna has stated on her draft page that she legally represented João Teixeira de Faria (even stating it's what she is known for), making her edits on his article a clear WP:COI. Threatening legal action in an edit summary because she doesn't like the contents only exacerbates this COI and begins learning towards WP:LEGAL. R0paire-wiki (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I missed that. She claims article represents criminal malice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm almost wondering if this is impersonation. She has two college degrees, passed the California bar exam and yet her English in the edits to the article and talk page, are barely coherent. She uses the word "murder" liberally in a way that has no connection to its actual or legal meaning and doesn't write like a person who is an American attorney. Her Instagram is all modeling photos but I checked the Bar website and a woman with this name is a practicing attorney. There is just something that doesn't gel with her presentation of herself and her claims about João Teixeira de Faria who, she states repeatedly, is just like Gandhi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits are professional anf pointed at clarity of a human being being murdered by the way this page is written. The word "murder" is used the way it appears in legal act to this writing. I am an attorney United States Supreme Court barred, I write enumerating all basis for rewrite as instructed by you. All words make sense from legal perspective, not from Wikipedia editor's vantage point that doesn't have context. You don't sound like an editor to me as those are kind, not pointed in criminal through accusation unfounded. 2601:600:8E00:1936:9B9:6B54:5097:4D39 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Becoming a member of the USSC bar is fairly easy. I’ve seen reports that there are over 70,000 members, so I wouldn’t be using that as a special qualification or proof of being correct in this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki postings on social media by the editor are consistent with the thought processes seen here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no legal threat in edit summary. There is clarification as to urgency of call to change contents as emergency. Its not "not liking," content. Content is hate speech necessitating immediate resolve. 2601:600:8E00:1936:9B9:6B54:5097:4D39 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So in this edit summary you stated “Malicious and criminal profiling subject to law suit.”

With another edit summary stating “The previous version pre rewrite is criminal malice”.

Taking both of these, it is evident they are both in reference to the article - with an implication the article would be subject to a lawsuit if your edits weren’t accepted. R0paire-wiki (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Rsjaffe, there is no legal threat in what was written. What was written in old version of article is clear criminal defamation on its face and could bring legal action as it incites violence and ignites riot. You are taking a human being's life away through criminal prose which is actionable, not a legal threat. You told me to enumerate changes/all basis for edits on Talk page for article, I did exactly that. Keep all changes. 2601:600:8E00:1936:9B9:6B54:5097:4D39 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify the “no legal threat” comment, you agree you will not engage in a legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. Correct? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if the Vmarkova isn't suggesting they will personally take any action, the chilling effect of making such threats remains. If there were substantial problems with any of our articles Vmarkova could have brought them up without saying someone might be subject to criminal sanction for not doing what they ask. (They can't anymore now that they've been rightfully blocked.) And WP:NLT aside, it's just dumb to make such threats. As a WP:BLP/N regular, I can say that from my experience such threats do not make us take their concerns more seriously. They actually cause us to take them less seriously since probably 95% of the time when editors make such threats there isn't a problem or at least not a significant one. (Although per WP:DOLT we try not to ignore them.) Editors able understand the basics of how stuff works around here will also know they shouldn't make such threats so are much more likely to be correct when they say their is a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Vmarkovna indefinitely and the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. Frankly, the English here is so incoherent and poor that, even without the legal and COI issues, there would be a legitimate WP:CIR concern around editing enwiki. Grandpallama (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I, too, endorse this block for the belligerent and irrational legal threats, and also agree with Grandpallama that this editor lacks the minimum level of English language competence required to edit here. I am very forgiving of the minor English language errors of good faith editors who learned English as a second language years after birth, and who are clearly here to build this encyclopedia. I will happily copyedit their little quirks. They are among our best editors, and I commend them for the work they do. This editor's writing, on the other hand, is at least an order of magnitude worse. Their prose approaches deranged and hallucinatory territory. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotional editing and possible UPE by two SPAs

Editors reported:

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

Gingeksace has created over 60 articles on the Italian poet, Menotti Lerro and his so-called “cultural movement”, Empathism, Lerro’s poetry prize Cilento International Poetry Prize, 55 articles on members and “adherents” to Lerro’s "Empathic Movement" Empathism, 4 articles on Lerro’s works and at least one article on a family member. Articles created by Gingeksace:

• Menotti Lerro – “founder” of the “Empathic Movement” Empathism
• Empathism – a so-called “cultural movement” founded by Lerro who also wrote its “manifesto” New Manifesto of Arts (which was redirected to Menotto Lerro’s article)
• Cilento International Poetry Prize – founded by Lerro to give “prize awards” to adherents/members of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• New Manifesto of Arts AfD merged to Menotti Lerro article[93]
• Contemporary Center of Arts which was G11’d{ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gingeksace#August_2022]
• Paolo Guzzanti - member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement (Empathism)
• Antonello Pelliccia – an associate of Lerro who authored along with Menotti Lerro the manifesto of Empathism, New Manifesto of Arts
• Bernardo Lanzetti – a member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Vincenzo Missanelli – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Enrico Testa – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Elio Pecora – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Umberto Curi - adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Omar Galliani – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Maria Rita Parsi - adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Elena Pontiggia – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Edoardo Boncinelli – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Raffaele Nigro – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vincenzo Schettino – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Aldo Castellano – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giuseppe Gentile – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Victor Lucena – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Domenico Giordano – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Francesco Abbate – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Ezio Guaitamacchi – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Mauro Afro Borella – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Andrea Granchi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Maurizio Zenga – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Carmelo Strano – member of Lerro’s Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Annibale Giannarelli – member ingeksace
• Francesco D'Episcopo – member of Empathic Movement
• Luigi Rossi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vittorio Santoianni – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Edoardo Landi – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Stefano Pantaleoni – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, writer of the “official anthem” of the Empathic Movement
• Roberto Guidetti – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, and interviewer of Menotti Lerro
• Tomaso Kemeny – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Marco Baudinelli (artist) – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Alessandro Quasimodo – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vivian Lamarque – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Lucrezia Lerro – sister of Menotti Lerro
• Diego De Silva (writer) – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Corrado Calabrò – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Maurizio Cucchi – adherent of Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Davide Rondoni – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Alberto Bertoni – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Mario Santagostini – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vincenzo Guarracino – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Lino Vairetti – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Annamaria Galeotti – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giorgio Verdelli – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giancarlo Pontiggia – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Rosanna Lupi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Marius Chelaru – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giancarlo Turaccio – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Elvio Annese – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who also participated in a presentation about Lerro’s manifesto
• Anna Bianchi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Angelo Casciello – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Tomasz Krezymon - member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Alessandro Serpieri (writer) – an associate of Lerro who wrote about Lerro and Empathis
• Donna Giovanna, l'ingannatrice di Salerno – a play by Lerro
• 2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore – a novel by Lerro
• Augusto Orrel: memorie d'orrore e poesia – an autobiographical novel by Lerro with the “critical reception” section of the article cited to Andrew Mangham a member of the Empathic Movement and former professor of Lerro, and to Maria Rita Parsi and “adherent” of the Empathic Movement who was then awarded one of Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Il Dottor Faust – play by Lerro

Articles created by Nihaon:

• Michele Pecora - member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Carmine Padula – adherent to Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Enzo Tinarelli– Member of E Lerro’s mpathic Movement
• Franco Arminio – member of Empathic Movement
• Gianni Macalli – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Renato Galbusera – adherent to Lerro’s Empathic Movement, an “Empathic Master” of Empathism
• Maria Teresa Chialant – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement

Forgive me for the length of this report. I am bringing it here rather than to COIN because it’s an ongoing problem, and there have been efforts to resolve these issues, but the problems have recently escalated, and it seems that a type of "walled garden" has been created. These two editors are involved in what appears to be an orchestrated effort to promote Menotti Lerro & Empathism and their associates. Efforts were made to resolve the issues, see Gingeksace’s talk page [94] an Nihaon’s talk[95].

Regarding User:Gingeksace - of the 68 articles they created, all except 5 are about the Italian poet/entrepreneur Menotti Lerro, his “movement” Empathism and its adherants/members of Lerro’s Empathism manifesto, his Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Lerro’s “international poetry prize” Cilento International Poetry Prize, his plays and books and associates.[96] Interestingly, Lerro’s article on Italian Wikipedia was deleted for lack of encyclopedic value/notability[97] and there were a few sockpuppet investigations on it-wp. Gingeksace has removed COI templates in the past.

Regarding User:Nihaon created 7 articles on Lerro’s Empathic Movement members/adherents during the same time as Gingeksace creating dozens. Nihaon also removed COI templates from several articles involving Lerro & Empathism. Of their 900-some edits most have been to add content or name-drop Lerro and or Empathism or Empathic Movement members.

This seems to be a coordinated PR/PROMO effort by two SPAs to promote Menotti Lerro, and his “Empathic Movement” Empathism, and it’s various projects and members. It’s obviously a COI project, and I feel confident in saying it is likely UPE – perhaps the work of a PR firm to promote Lerro and his associates and projects. Both editors have denied having a COI, claiming to be fans, however Gingeksace admitted asking Lerro for photos to publish, however for an “unconnected” editor they sure know a lot about Lerro’s life.

Since this campaign began, Lerro is now mentioned hundreds of times on en-wp [98]. While I am not claiming Menotti Lerro is not notable, his article is supported with a lot of local sourcing, and sources by his professor, Andrew Mangham and Francesco D'Episcopo, who is a member of Lerro’s Empathism, other members/adherents of Empathism or other affiliated sources.

The promo has been occurring at a highly accelerated rate this past month. Administrator attention to this situation is requested. Netherzone (talk)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing for The Empathic Movement. The "day of pickaxes" is fun tho, anyone with a good translation of E qui si precisa, ugualmente a gran voce, che le speculazioni armate ad arte dall’indomito teatrante, palesano ulteriormente una pomposa esaltazione ben conosciuta.[99] fiveby(zero) 04:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief note to say that I entirely agree with Netherzone's analysis above.

I only have one further point to add…

Looking at the Menotti Lerro article I noticed that although both of the users spend a lot of time there editing over extended periods they never seem to be there at the same time.

I then looked at the two users’ overall editing histories and noticed that they never seem to be online at the same time, often having clear days when only one is online, or otherwise apparently tagging each other in and out (as for example on Sept 1, 15, 17, 19, 20 & 22).

It looks to me as though one end user has been editing the various articles as essentially a full time (and thus paid?) endeavour over the last 4 weeks, alternating between 2 different accounts. Either that or the activity is closely co-ordinated, which would strongly support the idea of COI/UPE. Axad12 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

One other thing, I note that when directly questioned on COI the user Gingeksace has responded along the lines of (and I paraphrase) “never mind about the COI, just concentrate on whether Lerro is notable or not”, for example here [100] where the user also states their opinion that We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author, which the user goes on to state is (in their opinion) not a big problem if the author is indeed Enciclopedic. They then state the desirability, in their eyes, of a bit more of flexibility and asks Netherzone do not be so focused on the "COI problem" and help the page to be developed if [the subject] earned a place on this FREE Encyclopedia. Life is too short to be so strict.

As far as I can see that post is an obvious tacit confession of what is going on here. Otherwise why would a non-COI editor suggest that COI concerns are irrelevant if the subject is notable and that in their opinion there should be far more latitude on COI issues?

Over the last 3 years the user has made 761 edits to the article for Menotti Lerro and 392 edits to the article for Empathism, as well as making a further c.2,000 edits to other Lerro-related articles (most of which they created themselves).

The exact degree of association between the editor and Lerro seems unclear, but that they are someone close to the author seems obvious. There is clearly something wrong when the connection has gone undeclared in over 3 years (and 3,000+ edits) despite various attempts to ask them to declare COI.

It seems to me that this is a straightforward promo only account (and ditto for Nihaon). Axad12 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

(I paste here the answer I gave to Netherzone). Ok thanks for letting me know. Frankly, I am a bit surprised about your vision (even after I tried to explain a bit myself...). However, I will try to explain it better than I did in the past. I start from the Cilento International Poetry Prize: I read that many times you wrote that it is a Prize that Lerro gives to people to make them to adher to the Movement. As I have already told you, the Prize was born 2017 while the Movement was born 2020, therefore it means two things: first, that important authors accepted the prize before of the movement existence, and second that they have chose to adher to the Movement in a next moment (did you consider for a moment that maybe great authors, included a Nobel Prize for literature, are trusting this movement and wanted to be part of it? I do not think Menotti Lerro was so able to corrupt even all of them to promote himself and his movement...). Still, the Prize has been financed by Italian Ministry of Culture for 140.000 Euro (it happened in the last two years because they liked and trusted this Prize and the same Movement, which is part of the artistical project). Moreover, I wish to tell you I was creating these profiles starting from the list included in the ACCADEMIC VOLUME "The Empathic Movement, Cambridge Scholars 2023 and paperback 2024" published in UK of adherents to the Movement: I DID NOT do it to promote people and the movement in a malicious way, but I was thinking, in good faith, they were encyclopedic profiles, therefore I thought it would have been nice to create the lovely ferment which is involving so many important people both in Italy and abroud... (please look things from another point of view: a beautiful, new Movement is born and 200 and more good artist and scholars and people of culture wanted to be part of it... and now, after all this is already "living" in volumes and articals, I thought It was nice to put it also on Wikipedia! The thing that you say that "someone adhering a Movement cannot talk of the same Movement or of his founder", is a bit unconfortable to answer for me: high literary cultured world is connected (thanks to God) therefore it is normal in this field they talk to each other and adher to a Movement of one of them if they respect him. But it is not a limit, or a cheating thing, it is just genuine relations and collaborations among artists, critics, poets, scholars, academics, ecc... they like the work of someone else in the same field or related field and want to talk, write criticism and sometimes adhere to a new movement... Critics such Alessandro Serpieri (writer), Francesco D'Episcopo, Roberto Carifi, Maurizio Cucchi, Giorgio Barberi Squarotti and many others have not been teachers of Menotti Lerro but just in the years they appreciated him, wrote of him and finally wanted to be in his Movement (what is wrong with this?) (and what is wrong if also his own old academic professors trust him so much to adher to his movement?) all this is just a merit, I think, not a bad thing. IN ADDITION: Please, do not quote only local articals: Lerro has been mentioned on many national and international articles such as Corriere della Sera, Il Mattino, Il Sole 24 Ore, The New Arab, "Gradiva" Magazine, "Poesia" Magazine, Nuovi Argomenti Magazine. I understand that something as this movement does not happen often... But can you just for a moment consider that a pretty interesting new Movement arose in 2020, from Italy, going on in a more or less fast way towards the World (it happened after so many decades that something like this did not happen... and never in the past something similar happened starting from the South of Italy...). Lerro is not a powerful, rich person who could be so able to influence so many important authors just to "cheat" academic publishers and now Wikipedia... It seems just a relevant, new, beautiful situation spreading good feelings and literature and art in the World... (therefore i thought that also, and in particular, it should have be on Wikipedia as the amazing expression of "free encyclopedia" to welcome new pretty important, and maybe very relevant things.) In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Wikipedia the beauty that all of them, starting from the founder - which has 4 academic titles (included MA in Uk and Phd) and studied and taught or was visiting around ten different universities, and wrote 40 creative fiction and no fiction volumes - are creating! You, maybe, should help all of it and be pleased to help to put it on Wikipedia... Do you think that good authors could exist just in the past? Maybe Lerro is one that is working pretty well nowadays... cannot be? (would you so surprised for instance if a Nobel Prize was creating this Movement?). Well, Lerro is not a Nobel Prize but it does not mean he cannot create a notable movement or being a good author the same... I think. In conclusion, dear Netherzone, I ask you to not go too far with your thoughts and ideas about what is going on. All of this is extremely clean, and fruit of deep work and passion. Please look things from another point of view and, if you can, I ask you even to help to improve some of the profiles have been created. Maybe not all of them are encyclopedic (sorry if I thought so) but many are at 100%, starting with the Nobel adhered to the movement who DID NOT receive the "Cilento Prize", while the Nobel Prize for literature 2023 got this year the "Cilento Prize" and I see he did not adhere to the Movement... (so as you can see, maybe things are not really as you are thinking. I hope you can change your mind and, as I said, even help a bit if you like...). Thank you a lot to give me the opportunity to explain a bit better everything. With very best wishes. Gingeksace (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how Gingeksace and Nihaon have the same editing style and agenda, but are never editing on Wikipedia at the same time, and can frequently be seen to tag one another in and out through the course of a single day. You operate both accounts, don't you? Axad12 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of transparency, this would be a good opportunity for you to clarify what your connection is to Lerro. Let's be honest, you aren't just someone who once asked him for some photos, are you? Axad12 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not know... but: in case, (it is ipothetical) I would have another house and I go there to eat and pass my other kind of time and maybe I created a second profile because I did not remind the password of the first account, would it be such a bad thing? It seems to me you are so curious to know this thing (arriving to mock me... "indomito teatrante" and such) which, sorry, doesn't seem so relevant to me... (but maybe I was and I am wrong. I don't reeally know so well all these rules... Sorry!) My connection is that of someone, with a bit of knowledge of literature and art, passionate of all this new work has been done and the nice ferment is going on. If I can I will keep writing happily of it, if I cannot anymore, because I did something wrong, I will stop. Thank you a lot. All the best. Gingeksace (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You ask would it be such a bad thing?. Yes, it would be an obvious breach of WP:SOCK. Also, why would you need to use a different account when in a different house anyway? And how could you consistently alternate between forgetting the passwords for two different accounts?

Presenting your abuses as hypotheticals, such as your sockpuppetry and the comment earlier about We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author, is fooling nobody.

Just state your wrongdoing clearly. You might as well because this is the least convincing attempt at deception that I've seen. Axad12 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

NO. I tried to give an hipotethical answers at the question you did. Another hipothethical answer is someone else has what (you) see as "similiar style". In additiopn: PC keep (remind) the passwords, so maybe I could just use two different accounts because one password is reminded by one PC and one by the other. I repeat, they are only hipotethical cases, just to tell you, that there are possibilities... (but I see you just want to find a good reason to offend myself...). Maybe another thing is that in the second house in the same little village lives there with old parents in a secon house he goes to visit sistematically.... (you should not be so strict to imagine the reasons of others, in case it would be really the same person). Anyway, all of these are only suppositions to let you consider reasons at your focused question. All the best Gingeksace (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

PS about my words "we all know that about many authors there are people close to that authors" I just wanted to say that usually it is clear that very often behinde contemporary authors there are people close to them... It is at the least my impression. But I did not mean myself in that close way... Thanks so much! Gingeksace (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the reason is, it is still sockpuppetry. However, the real reason for the multiple accounts is presumably to allow you to make statements like this one, above, In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Wikipedia, i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user.

Hopefully someone will open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI and the question can be resolved one way or the other. I'd do it myself if I knew how.

Further WP:SPA accounts operating in the same topic area over the last 18 month can be seen by looking for the redlink users in the contribution history for Cilento International Poetry Prize, here [101]. They all have the same editing pattern of making large numbers of small edits minutes apart over periods of perhaps an hour or two. It's obviously not credible that these are all separate end users. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me say even for a bank robbery there are not so many ivestigations and strong wish to prove something pretty seconday in all this. But I understood it is your main interest in all this. It is fine than. Cheers! :-) Gingeksace (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"One, Two, Three" is just to say I DO NOT KNOW if there are more people involed in creating the articles... It could be one, or two or three or ten as for all Wikipedia articles i guess, (I was not really thinking at all of this). I really let me know I do not understand your aim starting from personal little mocking you did on me since the beginnig. Maybe someone should look at yo too... Kind regards Gingeksace (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mock you, the post you are referring to was by another user.

Sadly your approach over the years has always been that your abuses are unimportant and that other users should overlook them. If only you had just read the relevant policies and abided by them we wouldn't be here now. But here we are looking at a sockmaster operating multiple accounts in one narrow subject area and who refuses to declare his transparent conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not you "mocking" indeed. But anyway that was very bad behaviour... About myself, I did not do any abuse, what would be the reason for me to do that when I could with a single account? Anyway... All the best Gingeksace (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, it would be the usual reason for sockpuppetry. i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user. The deception in that regard between Gingeksace and Nihaon was actually quite subtle, including using two entirely different styles of language for the edit summaries for the two different accounts. E.g. when adding wikilinks one account consistently used the summary "underlined name" while the other consistently used the summary "highlighted name". However, you were given away by the fact that the two accounts were never online together and tagged each other in and out. Axad12 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, please, try to consider that in that case I even did not could imagine these things... (people I guess does not even know about all these a bit inedd strict rules...). And honestly I think that I have explained very deeply my reasons and goood faith even if I did some whatever eventual thing without knowing it was not permitted... Thanks. Gingeksace (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the attempt to make the two accounts look different by using different forms of edit summaries gave you away. How could that possibly have happened other than intentionally, and what possible intent could there have been except to deceive?

It did occur to me at one point earlier today that I must be looking at two different people taking turns using the same computer - but obviously if it had been something as innocent as that you would have said it a long time ago. Axad12 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ok, I see and now I understand a bit. Yes if I would have used two accounts on a same PC changing like that sistematically it would be very intentionally. I can confirm I did not do it. Have a nice day. Gingeksace (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to be entirely fair here, so I'll give you another chance. Can you explain why the two accounts were never online at the same time and used different edit summaries to make them look like different end users?

Denying it is no good, because it can be demonstrated that that was indeed happening. In the absence of a plausible explanation the only possibility is that you created the two accounts with intent to deceive. Axad12 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Be patient, I think I have already answerd at all possibilities and more...

Have a great day! Gingeksace (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so evidently there is no plausible good faith explanation for your activity. Good day to you. Axad12 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read again all you will find the answer... I talked about the possibilities at your question... But if to tell you one reason will mean to have attacks on me I prefer you immagine by yourself which of that possibilities ragards myself.

Thanks again. Cheers Gingeksace (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we'll get a straighter answer if you log out and then log back in with the Nihaon account? Axad12 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Continued TPA abuse after hardblock

User:Cloud software solution has been spamming AI-generated unblock requests 5 times in their talk page, someone please cover the user's mouth up with a duct tape and shut it up. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I am the blocking administrator. Cryptic revoked talk page access while I was visiting with my granddaughter and picking up a pizza. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear what we're supposed to do with all that information. EEng 10:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I hope you brought enough for all of us. 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 71.36.178.63

71.36.178.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2 (date change contradicted by existing source), 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Every edit they have made appears to be problematic as all have been reverted either directly or indirectly. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Revoke talk page by User:Rverything works for us all

The Rverything works for us all adding Personal attacks. and Reply. that say "Stop being so gay" and "Die cunt" vandalism?†TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done by HJ Mitchell. QwertyForest (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

for what it's worth, this is some LTA or another. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)