Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As already explained [35] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [36], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
    Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Artistic creation was indeed a central part of Badr al-Din Lu'lu''s rule, see: "Another notable figure is Badr al-Din Lu'lu (d. 1259), a ruler of Mosul who was recognized for his patronage of the arts." in Evans, Helen C. (22 September 2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0. or "Badr al - Din Lulu ( 1210-59 ), first as vizier of the last Zengids and then as an independent ruler, brought stability to the city, and the arts flourished. Badr al-Din Lulu himself actively supported the inlaid metalwork industry in his capital." in Ward, Rachel (1993). Islamic Metalwork. British Museum Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7141-1458-3. To be complete, an article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' indeed has to be in great part about art, except if you want to create an article such as "Art of Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu'lu', but I would tend to think this is unnecessary, as long as we can describe his artistic contributions in sufficient detail in the main article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not uncommon for a ruler to be a patron of arts, doesn't mean that their article have to become a Commons article. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.
    [37] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.
    [38] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.
    [39] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.
    [40] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.
    [41] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source
    [42] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question
    [43] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:
    Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to bring forward some information about some interesting but little known Armenian churches such as the Bagnayr Monastery, the Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) or Astvatsankal Monastery. At first, it seemed that Virtual ANI was about the only source on some aspects of these churches. Although it is not strictly RS, Virtual ANI turned out to be a fairly good source of information, and is also used as a source by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute. I agree it's not ideal though, it was more a way to start up these articles as I was researching them in the first few days, which I should probably have done in a Sandbox instead. I have since replaced the references with proper WP:RS sources, which, to be fair, have all confirmed the information initially obtained from Virtual ANI. In general, the existence of Seljuk influences on Armenian art is a well-known fact, including muqarnas etc... and is referenced per the above, among a multitude of other sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have started out with something like this comment, rather than ignoring KhndzorUtogh diffs and attacking them, not until after you've been criticized further. Moreover, Virtual ANI is still being used in some of the articles [44] [45]. Whether it's a well known fact or not is irrelevant, we still need to cite WP:RS, you should know this by now, you've been here for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have not added a single "Virtual ANI" reference to the Ani article since the time I first started editing this article 3 months ago: the dozens of Virtual Ani references in the article have been there for years (including when you yourself edited the article) and were added by different users. As for Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), I removed the two remaining references I had added [46]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my bad regarding Ani then, should have checked it more properly (see? I immediately apologized for my mistake. I didn't ignore it, double down or started attacking you). And thanks for removing the last Virtual Ani citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.
    I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [47] [48]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [49]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [50]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [51]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have much time, so I will just note that while I have previously thought Pataliputra needs to cool it with the images, they are—let's be honest—about as biased as any of us in the minefield of Central/West/South Asian topics. I would oppose any sanction that goes further than restrictions on image-adding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A restriction for image-adding was what I initially would support too. However, with Pataliputra's evasion of the evidence presented here, I support harsher restrictions. Otherwise, they will no doubt continue with their conduct, as they have already done for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly don't see much evidence presented. Diffs like [52] and [53] are nothingburgers, not worth escalating to demanding a broad topic ban. The brouhaha about Talk:India has no relevance to the proposed ban on Central Asian/Turkic topics. Pataliputra and I often don't get along, but this is too far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      AirshipJungleman29, the reason I put a DNAU in several days is to avoid the thread getting suddenly archived by either lack of comments or the DNAU suddenly expiring. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated
    ass
    Persians
    There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment. Northern Moonlight 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment retracted, and apologies if anyone felt offended. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again ("your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences"). This user seems to have a history of making xenophobic comments and pestering and harassing other users, having been warned previously. Some past examples:
    • "An actual Indian"
    • "The 'Society' paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society?"
    • "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country"
    Pataliputra was also warned by an admin to drop this argument because the images weren't undue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect any user like me with 7 years and about 70,000 edits on this site will encounter some conflictual situation at some point... your so-called "history of ... pestering and harassing other users" refers to a single event back from 2017, and was a defensive statement by a notoriously difficult user who has long left the site... My request for an "An actual Indian" for an illustration on the India page dated back to 2020 and was in reaction to an underage American kid wearing an Indian garment being used as an illustration in that article. In the end, that image was removed from the article by the very same Admin you mention, so I guess I was not all that wrong. And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour. And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.
    ...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [54].
    And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.
    Which you just attempted here against KhndzorUtogh (who merely called you out for obvious WP:OR) and it backfired. Be mindful of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I'll have to call into question what you call "clean up"... [55]: you are replacing contemporary images of actual Seljuk rulers by an image of a tomb, which would better fit in the page of an individual ruler, and worse, an anachronistic (15th century) French miniature with not an ounce of verisimilitude to the actual Seljuks. These are not improvements. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beggars can't be choosers, you very well know that contemporary images for specific events are hard to find for this period. At least they're related to the topic, which is what matters. You (amongst other things) added the image of the last Seljuk ruler to the section of the first Seljuk ruler for crying out loud (which I replaced with the tomb of the first Seljuk ruler, be my guest if you can find a better and actual relevant image). And all those images I removed were conveniently uploaded by you. Your reply further proves that your edits in terms of image adding are not constructive. You should read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture" It is amazing how you continue casting aspersions in every new comment explaining/apologizing for the former incident of casting aspersions. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly support a restriction on any image-adding; the apparent aspersions being cast freely and OR (or at least uncited) edits lead me to come very close to supporting a stronger restriction, but if i AFG i hope/guess/think that a smaller restiction will help him realise the inappropriateness of some of his actions and edit more appropriately. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Pataliputra better be topic-banned from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. Or even more topics based on provided diffs; e.g. Armenian and Caucasus. There are similar edits to his edits on Saka. For example, on Kushan Empire, Puduḫepa removed Pataliputra's addition,[56] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[57] ignoring Puduḫepa's concern and the content of article. Pataliputra's edits led to Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 2#UNDUE and speculative content. If you read the discussion, you see there were more questionable edits by him. Another example is Ghurid dynasty. Original research and unsourced edit[58] which was reverted[59] by HistoryofIran. Pataliputra has good edits for sure, but in this case he needs 6-month to 1-year vacation. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will note that I have long been one of the main contributors to the Kushan Empire article. When an unknown user comes around and deletes referenced material, we usually immediately restore the material. If disagreements persist, we naturally continue on the Talk Page. In this case, we agreed to leave aside the Turkic hypothesis (mainly stemming from the Rajatarangini account describing the Kushans as Turushka (तुरुष्क)) since the modern sources were weak.
    • The fact that the Turkic language was in use in the Ghurid dynasty and the succeeding Delhi Sultanate is neither original research nor unsourced (you will find more references in the body of the article). We removed it from the infobox because, arguably, it was mainly a military phenomenon, but it was in extensive use nonetheless. Please see Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Allen Lane. pp. 48-49. ISBN 978-0713995824.:

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

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather distorted version of what truly happened at Talk:Kushan Empire. Just checked that discussion - you were using poor sources, just like how you are doing today. You only agreed to not keep it only after you were called by several users several times. As for the Ghurids; that quote does still not justify that you added unsourced information back then (it's honestly quite baffling you can't see this, we've LITERALLY just been through this in regards to the diffs posted by KhndzorUtogh, just don't add unsourced info, it's really simple). And I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate by that quote, this still doesn't prove that Turkic had an administrative role military wise, it merely demonstrates that Persian secretaries had to learn Turkic to cooperate with the Turkic slaves, who also formed a ruling class. In other words, you are engaging in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH again - I also support a topic-ban from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is again a mis-representation: this fact about the usage of the Turkish language in India was actually already sourced from Eaton in the Ghurid dynasty article ("Culture" paragraph [60]), and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere" [61]. As for the role of the Turkish language in the Ghurid dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate, this was more I believe a matter of Persian secretaries having to learn Turkish in order to communicate better with their Turkic rulers. For example:

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

    — Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.
    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Except Turkic being an administrative language military wise is not sourced in the culture section, so the one doing the misrepresentation is still you. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm not mistaken, "Turkic being an administrative language military wise" is your own expression, and is a bit too specific. My only claim (if my memory serves me) was that Turkic was one of the current languages of the Ghurids, especially among the military [62] ("men of the sword", and later among the ruling elite of the Delhi Sultanate), which is exactly what Eaton says throughout (the two sources above, among many others available). On the contrary your blanking and edit summary [63] seems to deny any role for Turkic, and misrepresents Persian as being the only language around, which goes against academic sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's literally what I said even back then along with more; "While the military was seemingly mostly Turkic by the late Ghurid period, that doesn't seem to have been the case in the early and if not mid Ghurid times. Regardless, that doesn't mean that Turkic had any role/status military wise.". So where is the part where I'm denying any role for Turkic and saying Persian is the only language? More WP:ASPERSIONS, you clearly didn't learn from your experience just with KhndzorUtogh (also, this is not the first time you have made WP:ASPERSIONS against me, eg [64]). Turkic slave soldiers speaking Turkic (shock!) means that that the language had a status in the Ghurid system? With your WP:SYNTH logic, we should starting adding "Turkic" to the infobox of about every medieval Middle Eastern dynasty (including the Abbasid Caliphate) due to the popularity and power of Turkic slaves, perhaps "North Germanic" to the Byzantine Empire due to the Varangian Guard, Persian to the Abbasid Caliphate due to their Persian bureaucracy and so on. I'll try to avoid to responding too much to your comments, I feel like there is more than enough evidence to warrant a topic ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)[edit]

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

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

    Frenchprotector29[edit]

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

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

    I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have continued disruptively editing as can be seen with this edit. I think a block is warranted if they don't heed any warnings and repeat the same mistakes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and recently here too, removing sourced info [70]. They are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are also misusing WP:RS [71], and have made long term edit warring at Siege of Krujë (1467) [72] [73] [74] [75]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still edit warring.. [76]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now they're also creating copyvio articles [77] [78], and even despite that they still look poor. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an obvious WP:SPA here solely to push an agenda. Blocking is certainly warranted in this case.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another day, another WP:NOTHERE. Too busy with their SP quest, so they have no time to respond to this ANI report. Should be indef-blocked already. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree that this user should be indef-blocked as per WP:NOTHERE. I hope this doesn't fly under the radar so that the admins respond accordingly. Botushali (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been asked to have a look and it seems that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (fails to engage in consensus building; rejects and ignores community input) applies, so before continuing to edit, Frenchprotector29 is now required to create an unblock request, addressing the concerns that have been silently ignored after the initial incivility. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ToBeFree! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple issues with Researcher1988 at Zoroastrianism[edit]

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

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

    I just tried to protect the page From vandals. I have provided various Materials to the page and made positive and constructive edits.
    the problem is with one particular user who is relatively new, has little knowledge of Zoroastrianism and yet, wants to edit the article according to his personal interpretations.
    this debate is ongoing for 4 months now. the user doesn't accept the sources we provided, and persistently wants to edit the page in a way that fits his own personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that the "vandal" in question is a third party they are involved in an edit conflict with and has categorically not vandalized the page in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    with all respect, what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."
    the user tried to add misinformation and materials not supported by sources to the page in order to change the materials to his own liking.
    It is 4 months now that this conflict continues. I just wanted to prevent this from happening and protect the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus so I'd just let it go, especially since this argument has been going on for four months. Suggesting a close and a move back to Talk:Zoroastrianism. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone close this? I would, but I don't know how. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not considering we now can add canvassing to this issue. [94] [95] Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's... Not good. And here I was thinking this would end quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sincerely I don't lightly take edit conflicts to AN/I. This is rather a user who is becoming a constant time sink with antics like this while describing specific other good-faith editors as vandals. If it were merely a heated edit conflict I would not bring it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just seeking help from other editors, so we can end the dispute sooner. is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Researcher1988 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVAS is clear that you cannot go to other specific editors and ask them to resolve a content dispute in your favour - doing that while someone has an open AN/I thread about you is also just rather ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never wanted them to vote in favor of me. it is not about me, it is about a discussion which involves many. I just thought the dispute would end sooner, by calling other users attention. I didn't know It would make a problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff [96] is precisely what you should not do. And this is the problem - you are taking up a lot of time for us explaining, at length, don't do this, don't do that, and your clear strident POV on the topic is exacerbating this. I have suggested before you take time away from this topic and develop your skills elsewhere. This is still what I think you need to do as this is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we seek a way to solve the problem in the talk page? I don't think the problem is complicated. as I said, It is not about me. I'm just concerned about the misinformation in the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've said, the debate has lasted for four months already, and has resulted in an ANI discussion, so I doubt it. WADroughtOfVowelsP 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, those are newbie mistakes, how about Skyerise, a veteran user with 100+K edits who reverts a stable version of the article on shaky grounds while there was no consensus for that version ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that we should not (yet) commit to calling Zoroastrian monotheistic. However, the so-called "stable" version does just that, so it violates that consensus. Which I've explained on the talk page with summary counts, etc. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs you are providing can also apply to other editors at that talk page, I underlined several times personal attacks towards me and WP:POINT, WP:ONUS, WP:CON issues there.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my mind, the consensus is that the page should be neutral on the matter of monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [97] At this point should we just notify any other involved editors at Zoroastrianism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever is the subjective of what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism." should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that might be a few of us by this point. I think. He's certainly aimed it at me a fair few times. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gladly, if I comment further on this it will only be in the context of presenting new diffs. I would prefer not to engage in more back-and-forth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, I believe that User (which I accuse of Vandalism), has turned the dispute into a personal one. whenever I post some Information on the talk page, he shows up and posts something irrelevant and repeats his older opinions.
    In this case, I created a Topic for discussing a matter with another user. but he showed up and posted some irrelevant comment. I decided to delete his comment, since my post was meant for someone else.
    I believe these experienced editors are taking sides and their behavior is unfair. what is interesting for me is that they never blamed the other side, who is deliberately continuing this dispute for 4 month (despite various sources presented to refute him,) and his behavior is in my opinion some kind of trolling. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 If you would explain your reasoning (on the page) instead of telling me your beliefs, it would be a lot easier for us to discuss things & reach some sort of middle ground. As it is; I have been trying to engage with you about your sources, and the ways in which they contradict you, but you haven't really been willing to engage back. This makes it very hard to see your point of view, as you will state a thing as true (or quote someone stating it) but not explain why it is true. Without knowing the 'why', there is no possibility of agreement because the 'why' is the part I need to hear in order to agree. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I had reason for Every edit and revert that I made. why you continued this debate for 4 months? why you don't get the point and refuse to accept various reliable sources who refute your claims? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 Your own sources conflict with your views, and mine are reliable. If you would like to discuss why, please send me a talk page message. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bordering being a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT considering this has been going on for 4 months without resolution. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not guilty of that, but I admit it's possible. I do feel it's happening the other way, however. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the above, I'd Support a topic ban on Researcher1988 from Zoroastrianism, broadly construed, with the standard offer available once they've edited elsewhere to demonstrate they can edit without WP:OWNership issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing a Support behind that as well. Maybe also take a look through the article and the Talk page and see what can be done there to make the article better. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping in mind I'm someone who has engaged in this content dispute a considerable amount, I would also support a topic ban per HandThatFeeds's formulation. Remsense诉 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for banning the user for multiple reasons.
    Not only did the user misgendered me three times with several Users pointing out that this is impolite, they also violated several guidlines and trust.
    The user started an edit war with multiple users stating that they have been putting undue weight to their position, just for their own source to turn out barely to not support their view at all. Furthermore, it has become clear from the talkpage (I cannot find the exact version difference in this chaos anymore but it is possible to find by the search function) that there was probably religious motivation (maybe a form of neo-Zorastrianism comprable to Neo Tengrism insisting on being monotheistic) behind their edits, as they said that

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

    Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered.
    Thus, there is little to no evidence for remorse, and accordingly, little hope the user will improve their behaviour. Their behaviour is unbearable for other Users, frustrating and time-consueming for no good reasons or benefits. On the long-term Wikipedia profites more from banning the user entirely. Furthermore, it seems imperative to make clear that Wikipedia Users are not the playball for frustrated indidivuals who just want to see their opinions, here. Not deleting them could encourage bad behaviour in near future on other article talkpages as well, causing talkpages to deteriorate to the level of a WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @VenusFeuerFalle
    Zoroastrianism is called "Mazdayasna" "Mazda Worshiper" by Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians believe in one god. modern Zoroastrians consider themselves Monotheistic. there is a scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and Religious Dualism is a variation of monotheism too.
    this user completely ignores all reliable sources which clearly state Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, and insists on his personal opinions which are not supported by any of the academic sources:
    "In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
    https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    and insists on his personal opinions

    oopsie VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That deserves emphasis as an ancillary point. I usually think it's best to be patient with people on this particular point—but we have been. Researcher has been directly asked several times not to refer to VFF as 'he'. That they continue to do so without even acknowledging the requests is getting to be a sanctionable problem in itself, I would argue. Remsense诉 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    INCLUSIVENESSWE REALLY DIG ITSO PLEASE DON'T BEAN EFFING BIGOTBurma-shave I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am usually a User avoiding conflict, but if you keep on this attitude, you find yourself here again for WP:HARASS and WP:PA for spreading lies about me constantly and intentional misgendering, in case you will not be deleted entirely, which would be the (appropriate decission). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 You have been shown evidence that is not correct, and that the status of the religion is highly debated, but you have ignored it so far. Including evidence from your own sources that say it changed & evolved. If you would like to talk about it, I will be on the article's talk page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a topic ban for all the above reasons which add up to WP:NOTHERE. I've been waiting to see if the editor would listen to others, but we also have a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem with this editor as well. Disclosure: I am involved, but this is not one of my usual topic areas. Skyerise (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Researcher1988 continues to refuse to assume good faith and makes personal attacks accusing other editors of "hating" his religion, views Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND using terms like "infiltrated" and is engaged in canvassing: [98]. Can't something please be done about this? Skyerise (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise I don't even know what his religion is tbh. But isn't he in the middle of trying to attack multiple other religions, right from the first part of the lead of the article? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TiggyTheTerrible: well, I'm assuming from behavior that its some small modern sect of Zoroastrianism which considers itself monotheisitic and teaches its members that Zoroastrianism "has always been monotheistic". Skyerise (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise That could well be the case. I've been reading and comparing a few different versions of the Avesta, and there's something very odd going on with the translations. I get the sense that they're trying very hard to make it look like other religions. It's really strange. 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are also seeing a continuation of the POV pushing behaviour. These edits are not supported by the sources presented. [99] [100]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Starting to think we need a full block to make this user understand that we have rules blocking this kind of stuff. I'd support a block for at least a couple months, if not longer. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 13:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, despite multiple editors encouraging them to edit elsewhere, Researcher1988 has not shown any indication of having any interest of editing on any other topic. I'm not sure if there would be any functional difference between a t-ban and a block at this point so, despite my initial advocacy for a t-ban I'm pretty much neutral on this. The misgendering issue is certainly alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also I don't believe this personal attack has been brought to attention yet. This is an escalating situation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't entirely see how this fit as a personal attack, but it does show that this is escalating. My bones are sensing there's gonna be threats, and soon. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whoops, more canvassing (at least it seems like it to me, trout me if I'm wrong) [101] I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That was identified by Skyerise earlier today up-thread. Also the editor in question is an involved editor who they see as an ally. This editor is perfectly aware of the situation and was one of the first to comment at AN/I when I opened this thread and has rather publicly announced taking a break from that article space. I don't think it really constitutes canvassing although it speaks toward as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on various talk page discussions I read, Researcher1988 seems to be firmly convinced that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, often dismissing alternative scholarly interpretations that suggest dualistic or polytheistic elements. His approach in discussions appears to be quite inflexible, hindering collaborative editing. A one month topic ban should encourage the correct conduct. FailedMusician (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikaviani While I am remaining neutral on the solution to this, Researcher1988 has been highly combative and is the definition of WP:OWN and WP:POV. Especially in their: 1) attempts to keep controversial WP:FRINGE theories in the lead 2) Their obstructiveness, edit warring, and refusal to engage 3) Misrepresentation of sources 4) Double standards about source quality 6) Smears & baseless accusations against other editors. 7) Cherry-picking parts of sources, but refusing to acknowledge others. 8) Shoving anything that they can't revert to the bottom of the page 9) Aggression and anger over people editing grammar or adding purely visual changes, which they also revert. 10) Telling people they're mispresenting sources they are directly quoting. I could absolutely go on. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I see, my opinion is that a flock of editors came there at Talk.Zoroastrianism recently (canvassing ?) and while many of those users are veteran editors, I was quite baffled to see how they kept ignoring such basic rules as WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STABLE, WP:CON and so on. I don't agree that you are neutral, you were the first one to refuse to get the point. Again, you guys want to own that article ? Granted, but Researcher1988 does not deserve to be topic banned because they are a knowledgeable editor for that topic, probably much more than tkose who label Zoroastrianism as "Polytheistic" no matter if this contradicts what our best sources say. As I said, I'm out, I'm not intereseted in discussing this matter with some editors who obviously refuse to respect the above guidelines.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record it was actually Researcher1988 who brought me to the page. Specifically they went to WP:RS/N and were asking evasive questions about the reliability of sources from Academia.edu that were somewhat concerning. I decided to look in on the Zoroastrianism page on the basis of those concerns and found a mess. And your assertion that a bloc of editors want to label Zoroastrianism as "Polytheistic" is incorrect. The consensus on page, largely excluding Researcher1988 and yourself, is that Zoroastrianism cannot be labeled as either polytheistic or as monotheistic in Wikipedia voice as there is too much conflict within the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact here's the archive link to the discussion that led to my involvement in Zoroastrianism. As you can see I was not canvassed. [102] Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all the point, there is no debate as far as I've seen when we only look at the best sources about that topic, lie Bomati or Kellens. I'm not interested in discussing this matter again and again, as I already said several times and this noticeboard is not the place for that either.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Large consensus" excluding me and Researcher1988 ? then this is not a consensus, especially when, if I'm not mistaken, you guys have not been able to provide a single expert source that supports your claims and contradict the 3 expert sources I provided at Talk.Zoroastrianism ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (canvassing ?)

    Provide any evidence or strike this. Remsense诉 18:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikivaini We have provided multiple sources indicating there is no consensus. We emailed an expert on Zoroastrianism about it, too. Most of the sources you've provided are old, and in French. Not really a good fit for determining the current view. The page was very clear that neutrality is the way to go. I feel neutrality improves every article, honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using French sources and, in fact, I'm literate in French and can review French sources. However, on the other hand, WP:AGEMATTERS. Also content discussions would best be settled at article talk. We should be trying to restrict the scope of AN/I discussion to behavioral issues. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223Well, that is indeed helpful. Though I feel an article should be based on sources in the reader's language so they are not blocked out. Though I feel that @Wikaviani may be reversing and misrepresenting things somewhat. If they would like, I can point them to multiple examples of Reasercher1988 engaging in edit wars, & warnings given for such. As well as WP:OWN. I find it strange to be accused of WP:OWN when, for four months, I wasn't even 'allowed' to fix grammar or make aesthetic edits by you two. We have good sources that show there is a lack of consensus on this issue, and I feel that's enough to counter your older sources. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin review requested[edit]

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

    Well, I'm no admin, and I'm not prepared to {{nac}} this one, but since you have been waiting almost a week for a response to this, I can at least give you my take on what I am seeing on that talk page.
    For the record, I have no previous involvement in the relevant discussions, editorial history in the affected articles, or even previous engagement with any of the involved parties, as far as I can recall. But for whatever it's worth to anyone involved, I do have a fair degree of familiarity with the subject matter. I've long had a fascination with the historical phenomena of those various cosmological traditions positing a dualistic relationship between a broader creation in which a bounded physical world nests--typically presided over by some variation of a demiurge or other chief advisory of escape from that world by spiritual means. Zoroastrianism is a part of that vaguely-defined historical current and synchronsitic network of beliefs and cultural memetics, of course. However, the bulk of my comments will be directed towards the policy considerations here, rather than making particular arguments about these relationships, as is appropriate for ANI.
    Just to be clear though, I did review most of the content on the talk page and follow up on the basic corpus of the sources being utilized, and history of recent versions of the article. And to be honest, I found there to be a fair bit of binary thinking from both camps here. The larger camp is showing a little more flexibility and restraint, it is worth saying--but the gap isn't huge and there's a whole lot of trying to finesse more definitive support for one side of an artificially dichotomous distinction out of sources that seem to me to be showing a maximal and intentional emphasis on the uncertainty of certain facts. For example, the exact relationship between Zoroastrianism and other cosmologies that it cross-pollinated with.
    This isn't as difficult as the polarized discussion on Talk:Zoroastrianism in recent threads seems to suggest it is. In situations like this, WP:Attribute, introduce the reader to the various interpretations and any statements in RS about any uncertainties and open issues, including limited direct quotes if necessary, and let the reader reach their own conclusions. This analysis is, I felt time and again reviewing those discussions, getting over-complicated in a fairly large percentage of the comments in the recent discussions on that page. I respect that there are also some legitimate WP:WEIGHT questions also being asked here, but I don't see that it's reasonable not to make reference to the relationship between Zoroastrianism and its contemporary (and possibly decedent) belief systems. So the question is how you define those relationships. And where there are so many theories (which the secondary sources themselves go to lengths to describe as uncertain), that very dispute is exactly what policy directs to be discussed for the reader's benefit.
    Now, is that due content for the lead? Well, again, I would suggest that is not as cut and dry as either side holds. On the one hand, all things being equal, the content of the lead is meant to roughly map to a subtopic's overall weight and importance in the main body of the article. But for a topic like this, establishing historical context is a big part of the overall role of the lead, and I think it roughly aligns with the average reader's needs/benefits to point out that these relationships between theological traditions exist, even if the exact chronology/directionality is likely to be left permanently obscured in the historical record. But primarily I feel like there must be some reasonable compromise here.
    I have similar feelings about the "polytheistic" (and other contested labels) debate. I mean, y'all realize these are religious cosmologies, not physical cosmology, right? As in, some subjectivity is to be anticipated, even among highly relevant primary and secondary sources? Yes, I get that certain labels have higher degrees of academic cache among subject matter experts. Equally though, it's entirely reasonable that both academic and idiomatic descriptions are going to borrow from a wide array of reference points.
    Look, I get that my comments are somewhat reductionist on the debates being had on that talk page: there's some nuance to a number of the questions being raised there about what is WP:DUE. But my main observation is that there is a noticeable amount of middleground between the two clear camps that is currently going unexplored. Yes, one side is in the substantial minority and is perhaps being a little more tendentious in their approach. But on the whole, wouldn't say anyone is walking away with the gold prize for open-mindedness on that talk page just at the moment. Just an outsider's read. SnowRise let's rap 07:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I would also add that this discussion, at Talk.Zoroastrianism, is certainly not the best I've been involved in so far. While I am probably a bit guilty I don't think that I'm the only one, whatever "side" one would consider. That's why I suggested (and still suggest) a full protection of the article and an admin revert to a stable version of the article. I tried to restore an old version of the article but was reverted on quite a shaky ground and with no consensus.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No that revert was supported by article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise Thank you for your time. I view it as a movement that has evolved over the historical period, and I agree it isn't clear cut.
    @Wikaviani To put that in other words: you acted without consensus to impose a version of the article that contains WP:FRINGE and contested theories in the lead. I'm happy for that part to be placed in a 'controversial' section, along with a discussion concerning the influence of those other groups on Zoroastrianism, but it certainly doesn't belong up there. It seems especially WP:POV to put it at the tope, and not to balance it against the range of contrary evidence contained even within the article itself. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I acted in compliance with WP:STABLE, trying to restore a stable version of the article untill a consensus is found. Sounds like you guys ignore that the onus is on you to achieve consensus for your changes. Please keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikaviani A vote that is evenly split is a vote for neutrality on the topic. Not a vote for your particular side. To say anything else is to weight the vote in your favour. WP:STABLE is quite clear that it is simply about vandalism, and "is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute." The current version of the article is stable, and entirely the product of consensus. I should be clear that this is a compromise on our behalf, and I hope you see it a such. In my mind, the evidence is very clearly on our side - and I'm sure you feel the same way. So lets meet in the middle? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin eyes needed at Havana syndrome[edit]

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

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

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

    I think it was wrong to tell me about this and no one else. But the page may need long term PP until people actually start to suggest substantive edits, and not vague requests. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a procedural note that this might be better suited to WP:AN rather than WP:AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With that being said, one remedy might be to label this as subject to the AP2 arbcom sanction. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for actions against any users to notify, and I told you as a courtesy because you had mentioned maybe seeking admin help so nothing was doubled up. Had there been anyone else to notify, I would have.
    The hope here is just to get more admin eyes at the talk page to keep things from getting out of hand (also at a time when I had to head out the door for the day). If someone wants to propose specific sanctions here or discuss the broader issues, then notifications can be sent out at that time. KoA (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested some input at WP:AE#Havana syndrome about whether this is covered by a contentious topic and whether some AE action might help. Just FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem we have here is that some editors didn't like the consensus in favour of including some content they didn't like, and when removing it in its entirely didn't work, they resort to removing pieces of it, claiming it needs MEDRS, when there is consensus against that too (ongoing RFC has an obvious outcome). It is indeed something that an uninvolved administrator needs to take a good look at. FailedMusician (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that we have questions about how much and where. Consensus is just for the inclusion of something, not how to word it. Despite repeated requests to see a suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a suggested text here [103]. So far I see no alternative texts from those removing it. They claim it needs to be removed "because of MEDRS" despite the claims not being purely BMI. FailedMusician (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, this does highlight the problems FailedMusician is exacerbating. FailedMusician is probably the editor Slatersteven's comment most applies to here and this response really comes across as WP:IDHT. They've been repeatedly told about ONUS policy and the expectation that when their content was disputed about a month ago now, they needed to get consensus on the talk page for it or some variation instead of edit warring. Instead, they fight tooth and nail against the idea that they need to propose something specific and get consensus on the talk page for it rather than keep reinserting. When I see an editor having content that was discussed and did not have consensus only for them to try to wiki-lawyer saying something like, "No you, you don't have consensus to remove", that's usually a major source of disruption. By my count, they've tried to slow edit war this content in at least 5 times in April, each time knowing it had already been disputed and needed consensus on talk first.[104][105][106][107][108]
        Especially given that they are a relatively new/low edit account and are barely past the WP:SPA threshold with most of their edits in this subject, the battleground behavior I'm seeing has me wondering how much a p-block from the page would help calm things down. The inflammatory comments even in the last 24 hours on the article talk come across more as itching for a fight[109][110] rather than doing the simple thing of not commenting on contributors and simply just getting consensus for specific text. They're making it harder on themselves, and it does seem like a textbook case of a new account that shouldn't be learning the ropes in a contentious topic. Their talk page isn't encouraging either on the fighting attitude and WP:NOTTHEM:
        • When warned about edit warring at the page, FM in the edit summary said You may participate in the relevant discussions on the talk page instead of casting aspersions..[111]
        • When asked if they had a previous accounts (not an unreasonable concern given how they are suddenly jumping into Wiki-process discussions and the battleground attitude), they just deleted the message.[112]
        • When other concerns about their behavior have come up on their talk page, the refer to it as unhelpful and unwelcome and harassment[113][114]
        KoA (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        When a non-administrator editor I am in dispute with asks me if I had another account, I have no obligation to answer, especially when they put the same question to other editors in the dispute. I have said I have edited before and there is nothing more to talk about. The other snide remarks I removed were harassment. FailedMusician (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        They were not harassment they were concerns about your style of editing. And if you have edited under a different account, you should disclose that account. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you have edited before, then that does bring up valid WP:CLEANSTART concerns, especially However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing). Obviously those discussions are approached cautiously, but so far it appears that was broached to you reasonably.
        As for The other snide remarks I removed were harassment. That does not justify the sniping you engage in on the article talk page, but couching others bringing up issues with your behavior in proper venues as harassment is avoidance and hallmark tendentious editing. My suggestion is to step back from the topic entirely and avoid controversial topics in order to learn the ropes about behavior norms, edit warring, etc., especially when it comes to battleground mentality. That's me trying to give you a pathway that avoids sanctions, and I'm not out to get you here. Sometimes people course-correct and eventually can return to collegial editing on their own when given advice like that, and others unfortunately just lash out instead. With the way you're heading at that page though with this degree of WP:IDHT about one's own behavior, often times the only option the community has left is sanctions when all else fails. KoA (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        FailedMusician: Since I'm not in dispute with you and have never been AFAIK, I've asked you some questions which if answered IMO will help re-assure editors over your previous editing. I do hope you will answer them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes I replied there. FailedMusician (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe I was "in dispute" with FailedMusician when I asked them if they had another account (unless they are counting some dispute from their past?). What raised concern was the very niche knowledge FM seemed to have about the COVID-19 lab leak theory article, and the drama around that.[115] Makes me suspect some kind of grudge editing by means of this WP:PROFRINGE pot stirring at the Havana syndrome article. It would be a policy violation to avoid WP:SCRUTINY by using different accounts - for example to make it hard to detect similar patterns of contribution to the same kinds of fringe/politically-charged contentious topics. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        What also caught my eye when it came to niche knowledge was wiki-speak used when lashing out at editors addressing their behavior. When you have an account that barely had 100 edits a month ago all of a sudden threatening that those trying to deal with their behavior should be topic banned, jumping into policy/guideline discussion, etc. with a very clear chip on their shoulder about reliable sourcing guidelines, this has the makings of a very murky case of CLEANSTART.
        Not having active sanctions is the bright line for CLEANSTART, but if they were engaging in this behavior in their old account, which seems likely given the above, I worry about the scrutiny question too. KoA (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes the combination of Wikispeak, intense focus on one article (glad to see they are branching out), and adversarial behavior raised red flags for me. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the AE went well. Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Slatersteven for notifying all users in the article talk page. I agree with you that posting here without notifying users was not appropriate. The fact that only some users were notified is even more concerning. Especially since it looks like FailedMusician is being attacked above for no reason at all by a group of "aligned" users trying to stir up something against them.
    Regarding the article: I agree the discussion is going in circles. Editors are ignoring established consensus over and over again and there is a bad RfC clogging up editor time with no end in sight. I think we need a reset on that talk page of some kind to get back to work. Closing some discussions might help. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No user was called out in the original post - I think it was fine, what was needed was page protection which eventually occurred. "Especially since it looks like FailedMusician is being attacked above for no reason at all by a group of "aligned" users trying to stir up something against them." In response to their comment? Showing they had notice? Regarding valid concerns? Please. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the original post was careful not to mention me, but the fringe cabal were very quick to make it out and make it all about me. So far this looks a thoroughly failed attempt by editors to lobby administrators in a content dispute. FailedMusician (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh see @KoA 18:04, 23 April 2024 comment regarding your behavior. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, when I initially opened this ANI, it was just to get help with the article across the board (mainly edit warring and all the talk page sniping), but I wasn't going to ask for action against any specific editor since I was hoping sanctions wouldn't be needed if an admin stepped in there and just told people to knock it off with CT sanctions pending if it didn't stop. I had no plans to mention FailedMusician until they doubled down here, and they would not have been the only one if I was coming here to ask for sanctions based on behavior instead of trying to get the article/talk back on track.
    So when I see Yes, the original post was careful not to mention me, that's already highlighting a battleground attitude, but the fringe cabal comment is just dripping with it. The latter really does look like a violation of WP:CLEANSTART with the grudge editing related to fringe topics Bon Courage mentions. Gloating about it isn't very helpful either considering FailedMusician was just warned with an impending block[116] for their behavior picking fights with admins at AE.[117][118] They just aren't getting the message about their behavior and are deflecting from that repeatedly. Had they not of been doing that, I probably would not have commented here after April 22. KoA (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first time they've been warned recently about messing around with discussion format. [119] Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok that stuff at AE is WILD I didn't even see that... yes I believe that is a great example of their general battleground mentality. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that too, and there should be some action over it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By a quick count, they have over 100 comments on Talk:Havana_syndrome (1/8th of the total comments on the page.) And it's mostly just making the same tiny number of arguments over and over - they've been WP:BLUDGEONing discussions there to the point where they basically all revolve around them and their views. It makes no sense for the entire page to be full-protected for an entire month when the issues are so clearly the result of a single editor's persistence. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In general that talk page drips with BLUDGEONing but I disagree FailedMusician was a big offender. He has just been working on the page for a long time and before other editors started ignoring consensus, bludgeoning discussions and in general instigating useless edit wars over and over again with endless arguments over nothing despite clear consensus. A lot of wasted editor time. I see the usual tactic of bunching up a lot of unrelated past offences by FailedMusician to make it seem like they are a problem and try to get some sanction against them (just throw in anything until something sticks). Nothing new here: the usual toxic witch hunt behaviour that appears every time something is posted on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. This mess started after a rallying cry was posted on that noticeboard (later redacted by the OP after I pointed out the WP:CANVASS issues [120]). Since that post the page has exploded and has already been protected several times with no end in sight. It's really hard to work collegialy and serenely in this environment. FTN needs to be reined in to break this vicious cycle of toxicity. Everything that board touches turns into a war. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why this asked for admins to have a butchers, and did not single out one user. So yes DS might be needed, and enforced. And yes full protection (dates to this point ) might be a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? They have no record of prior activity of working on the page "before editors started ignoring consensus" - their edits to that page directly coincide with the publication of the 60 minutes piece. I would also say consensus is not clear... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely don't see any clear consensus on that talk page; I do note that FailedMusician and one or two editors that agree with them have taken to repeatedly claiming a consensus, but that is not the same thing at all. Beyond that, noticeboards exist to provide a way to broadcast concerns about an article to a large audience without violating WP:CANVASS. Bon Courage's message there was entirely appropriate, and the WP:ASPERSIONS you directed against them on their talk page were utterly inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you look at the two relevant discussions on the talk page [121] [122] and count the number of editors supporting inclusion (as I have [123]), at least 18 editors favour inclusion (excluding some IPs), compared to only 5 or 6 who oppose it (or 7, if you want some padding). This tally doesn't include the discussion on FTN and the RFC, where more editors lent support. Please respect consensus. FailedMusician (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I definitely see no consensus there. Consensus is about weight of arguments, not simply about counting noses; and obviously people who are WP:INVOLVED in a discussion, as you are, are not qualified to evaluate it. I'm particularly concerned that when multiple people pointed out that you lacked consensus for your additions, you actively argued against an RFC on it, saying (in response to Again, you are welcome to take this up at ANI) If you attempt to relegislate consensus with an RFC, I will. That is plainly inappropriate; when there is disagreement about whether there is a consensus or not, an RFC is the mechanism we use to settle the issue, so your attempts to discourage it are obviously concerning. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with your characterisation of the consensus [124] [125], but I appreciate your participation in the RFC I initiated [126]. I posted it in response to a shift of some editors from a stance of complete exclusion to partial exclusion, which many of us found nonsensical. We can now leave the consensus making to an uninvolved party. FailedMusician (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That's my continuing concern too, and I'm worried it's only emboldening those engaging in it like in my conversation above with FailedMusician. FM for instance is still sniping at editors with back-handed practically gaslighting comments like I believe this discussion serves to remind editors to avoid hyperbolic language to push a POV, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.[127] It really comes across as them fanning the flames. KoA (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole post is literally fanning the flames. Calling that a personal attack is quite a stretch. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gtoffoletto, that is outright gaslighting when you fan the flames and then try to accuse others responding to it. Accusing others broadly of using hyperbolic language to push of POV is a bludgeon in a content dispute that's already inappropriate, but when that very editor has had POV issues addressed about their behavior, it's not just battleground mentality, but a more pernicious form of tendentious editing through back-handed sniping, posturing, or whatever you want to call it. KoA (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of FM, when you look through your own comments here, so much of that applies to what you've been doing yourself:
    1. Like that talk page drips with BLUDGEONing, the answer to you is simply stop bludgeoning the process like when you tried to close a discussion in a domineering fashion that MrOllie had to caution you about.[128][129]
    2. Related to instigating useless edit wars you did that by joining in[130] on refusing to follow WP:ONUS policy and just repeatedly declaring consensus even just a few comments above. All you or others had to do was propose specific text and get consensus and/or do an RfC on it, the bare minimum expectation in collegial editing when content is disputed.
    3. Instead, you too fought tooth and nail (along with FM) against that basic expectation with obstructive given the consensus we have already established.[131]
    Building up the tension and then accusing editors who try to address those behavior issues as out to get you or someone else is a common theme I'm seeing here in your comments even going back to the UFO subject, so I hope you take that advice seriously.
    When you continue the same battleground attitude that got you topic-banned in UFOs in other topics like GMOs previously (including harassing me about my personal life, which is why I avoided directly interacting with you until this comment) and then jump into another conspiracy involved topic like the current topic, it's taxing to the community, but also telling us that you aren't taking in the issues related to your own behavior. That's especially when blaming others for the atmosphere you are fostering. It's a form of deflection, blaming FTN does not excuse your own behavior, and it multiplies the disruption us editors who had been notified through noticeboards had to try to wade through. The WP:IDHT with you two has been disruptive there and is in part why I asked for general help here to tamp down on attitudes that are more about picking fights than really focusing on working out content. It's also why I drew back from the talk page after initially trying to help there because of how toxic the page had become highlighted in my initial report here. KoA (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggesting a TBAN, or voluntary |(which they will break, assuming they even agree)? Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice FailedMusician has now created China and the opioid epidemic in the United States, which seems to be an entirely synthetic piece of original research based on WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and is again POV-pushing the meta-theme of other-countries-being-mean-to-America, which I suspect they were also doing with their undisclosed alt account. Greater WP:SCRUTINY could help clarify matters. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While I am not, at this time, asking for sanctions against FailedMusician, I think it ia about time they disclose what their prior account was. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Slatersteven placed a "speedy deletion" tag on the article without any rationale, despite it being supported by secondary sources demonstrating notability. @Bon courage is again reviving unfounded accusations of me using multiple accounts, previously addressed by me with an admin. These editors have persistently targeted me, moving in from FTN to the Havana syndrome article where they unsuccessfully tried to omit crucial details, and then to this frivolous ANI complaint and now my article on China's fentanyl smuggling, all amounting to harassment (WP:HARASSMENT). FailedMusician (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You could clear up a lot of these questions if you disclosed who your prior account was. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The collegues are politely reminded that this thread is about the Havana syndrome article. Should they desire to pursue "litigation" against FM on a more general level, they are encouraged to start a new thread. Thank you. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RainbowBambi[edit]

    After my last premature close, I think we can all agree that RainbowBambi is a WP:TROLL. Indeffed by Floquenbeam with a TP ban on top. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now CU-blocked.-- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This person appears to basically be trolling, so for the moment I have p-blocked them from article space but also informed them they may still comment here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either this is a big case of WP:CIR or a troll. Former or latter, you decide. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've undne your close, as this was a partial block intended to allow them to make their case here while unable to edit article space. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry on my behalf. When I looked at the talk page, I only read the part where it said "You have been blocked indefinitely" and immediately assumed that the case was closed. Didn't realize they were blocked from article space, and you invited them to the ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 20:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This person is trolling. The names and nature of the articles they decide to PROD on are quite telling. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways: This user has made personal attacks on my talk page 1. I ask that the ban is not removed, and extended to all spaces. ElENdElA (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry, I made one inappropriate comment stating that "you are a troll" which is incorrect, please un ban me RainbowBambi (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to fight vandalism, but I am still new to that process, I just want someone to teach me how to properly fight vandalism, I want to make a difference on Wikipedia RainbowBambi (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this isn't trolling, it is incompetence at a level beyond any reasonable hope of rectification, and since functionally the end result is the same in either case, an indefinite block seems entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I need teaching, please give me a chance RainbowBambi (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to pop in unannounced, but a couple days ago they tried to PROD a bunch of stub articles for “not containing enough information” or for no given reason. At least 27 articles in short succession. They also changed their username soon afterwards. This person is just a troll. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to random articles, I did not know how to put in the stub template. I am not a troll, I was just trying to help RainbowBambi (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those articles already had the stub template on them and obviously going around marking random articles for deletion isn’t helping anyone. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RainbowBambi: If you are really in good faith, then an advice I have for you, whenever going beyond the simple editing task for beginners, is to ask to self if I am experienced enough for this new task or not, and what is the probability that some lack of knowledge I apparently have will cause disruption. Using tags like PROD requires knowledge of basic policy and guidelines of Wikipedia, which I think is natural to a new editor like you to lack. Be bold in making decisions, but don't rush. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, I will look into all the editing tools now. May I please be unblocked now, I promise not to incorrectly label or edit articles. RainbowBambi (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm being completely honest, I simply do not believe you. There are too many tells that you have been being deliberately disruptive and dishonest. Also, I also generally don't review my own blocks, so you'll need to convince another administratot to unblock you. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would just indef block as a troll, but since there is a discussion here, I guess I'll join the timesink to say: "Does anyone object if I block as an obvious troll?" Taking all their edits together, there is simply no way this is a clueless newbie. Based on the editor time spent replying here, the trolling has already succeeded. May I end it? --16:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs)
      Bring down the bridge. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We've heard enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I misread the thread and thought someone didn't think this was trolling. I think we're unanimous. Blocking now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jonharojjashi, part 2[edit]

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

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

    Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [132], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

    These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [133] [134], but they were mostly fruitless.

    Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699[edit]

    1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [135] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [136]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
    2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [137]
    3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [138] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122[edit]

    1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [139] [140] [141] [142]
    2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [143]
    3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [144], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [145]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
    4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [146] [147]

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan[edit]

    1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
    2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [148] [149]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [150] [151] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
    3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [152] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [153] [154].

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330[edit]

    1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [155], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [156]
    2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [157], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [158]
    3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [159], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [160]
    4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [161] [162]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [163]
    5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [164] [165] [166] [167] [168]

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11[edit]

    Jonharojjashi more or less restored [169] the unsourced edit [170] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

    Closing remark[edit]

    In made response to my previous ANI [171], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [172] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

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

    So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
    "I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.
    Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.
    Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.
    1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of
    Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?
    1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
    2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [173]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
    3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [174] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [175] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.
    Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Turbo cancer[edit]

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

    I've added it to my watchlist to keep watch. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Let's try and stop a battle from happening. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Watchlisted. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. Will be fun blocking the (Redacted), should any arise! Acalamari 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Between "deranged fuckwits" and "racist / anti-vaxxer trash" I'm not seeing how this is in line with the civility policy, regardless of who this person and/or their following is/are. Imagining the controversy if editors here were referred to with those terms. Anyway, not like I can do anything but complain about it and hope people try to be more civil... JM (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can make a useless symbolic gesture, like the one I'm making by redacting the comments. jp×g🗯️ 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But JM2023 has conveniently memorialized them independently, so everyone's happy. EEng 03:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Just a note, the article is semi-protected because of a CTOPS action through June 12th, 2024, protected by Daniel Case on December 12th of last year, so we may be fine for now. I will still watchlist the page as well. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks much! Guy (help! - typo?) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RWI? Putting square brackets around it didn't help me, I don't think you're talking about any of the things on our disambig page. I'm a teacher, so my mind went to Read Write Inc., an educations supplies/software company, but I don't think that's what you mean either. Throw me a bone here? Girth Summit (blether) 15:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the context, I'm guessing "real world identity"?? Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make sense. I thought about it for a while, but it didn't occur to me. Girth Summit (blether) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Based off these two articles revision history, it seems you are in fact edit warring here, potentially against consensus. In fact, quick scroll reveals almost any recent change to the article 'South Park: Joining the Panderverse' has been reverted by you. I hear a bird...no a mutual WP:BOOMERANG already. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This report obviously doesn't require a response from me and I'm not particularly interested in engaging with it. However, noting the above suggestion of a boomerang, these users have dealt with SanAnMan's tendentious edit-warring recently and may wish to engage with this conversation: @Alex 21: @Wikibenboy94: @Happily888: @EverestMachine 4001: Cjhard (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Annnnnd it gets worse. @SanAnMan has gone to multiple editors, such as in this revision :[176][177], encouraging them to deal with an 'abusive user' (WP: ASPERSIONS ) and attempts to canvass to support him. I count he did this at least 5 times, saying he would 'fight for he believes is right' (another policy violation). Im deeply annoyed at having to call out a senior editor for this, but this is beyond The Pale Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to SanAnMan, it looks to me that he's absolutely in the right here regarding the article changes themselves. I can't see anything wrong with the reviews in the Joining the Panderverse article, and the redirect pipe in the Pandemic Special article is clearly against guidelines.
    And why are reversions being made before this incident report has been closed? [178] [179] I believe further discussion is required first. Barry Wom (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'I can't see anything wrong with the articles changes themselves' and that's fair. But the issue here is that he canvassed for his side of the story, hence my reversion on the first diff, so I acted. On the other diff there is a now 3-1 consensus, so I made the changes. Feel free to revert the second change, but I stand by keeping the first one as is for the duration of this ANI case. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for keeping the reviews as is has been established by myself, Barry Wom, Nightscream, and Special:Contributions/109.77.193.78. Please check your math. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, there was erroneous data in my calculator, it's down to this [180] summary where you state there is a 2/1 consensus, which would make me the third. But while we are on topic, why did you canvass multiple editors regarding the most minor of issues? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only editors I contacted were editors who had already previously been involved in the talk page discussion about these reviews as well as multiple other articles involving South Park, as they had already expressed an interest in the discussion. I did not consider that to be WP:Canvassing, especially when the section states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I will freely admit to being a very passionate editor when it comes to WP. And yes, I will also admit that I need to be more mindful of getting into edit wars. I am also adamant about trying to enforce what I believe to be tried and true WP policies/guidelines including WP:NOTBROKEN, especially when other editors seem to purposefully break them without justification. And I never under any circumstance use any kind of foul language or veiled threats ("cross the bright red line"). - SanAnMan (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (responding to ping) I will say that in my interactions with SanAnMan, as well as a cursory glance at their talk page history, that I believe that this user likely has a problem with WP:EDITWARRING, WP:OWNership and WP:CANVASSing. SanAnMan frequently is shown to choose to not follow WP:DISCFAIL/WP:DR procedures, including having been previously blocked for this behaviour and choosing to not discuss on talk pages when disputes occur or they are requested to. Whilst I understand that SanAnMan is a "very passionate editor", I don't believe that this gives you the excuse to edit war. Happily888 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The only posts I have made to his talk page have been required posts for notices including 3RR and other required admin notices. I have not posted any personal notes to his talk page. SanAnMan (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true: this was not required in any way. And "cross the bright line" is not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my opinion that Cjhard purposefully was tracking my edits after our initial conflict and purposefully chose to involve himself in another edit war with me on that article. I will apologize for inserting my personal opinion in those comments, but the initial part of the vandalism notice is an auto-complete courtesy of Twinkle. And you and I will have to agree to disagree that "cross the bright red line" is not a personal attack, especially when this article frequently equates the phrase to acts of war. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe that @Drmies was saying that the notice was unnecessary, especially a 4th-level one. I would agree. Dialmayo 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SanAnMan, if you're really going to argue that Cjhard was declaring war on you--well. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that he was actually declaring war on me. I do equate the statement as a threat though. My two cents. If he just leaves me alone and stops following my topics of editing, I'm fine, because I do still believe he purposefully followed my editing to another article he previously had no interest in whatsoever for the sole purpose of continuing his battle with me. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well how do you know he is reverting you with the sole purpose of targeting you? 'Cross the line' sounds like a 'your crossing 3RR and may bear the consequences of it' to me. Let the WP:AGF flow and read up on WP:DISCFAIL Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain why you decided to break the editing guideline of WP:NOTBROKEN on the article solely because I asked another interested editor to review it so I could try to avoid more warring? The editors I asked to review the article were already-existing interested editors, so I did not intend to be WP:Canvassing. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please answer how Cjhard is targetting you? There is no reason to rush to other editors to support your point of view in a edit war (NOT a discussion) before going to the edit war noticeboard or following WP:DISCFAIL procedures. Except, of course, if you are not entirely blameless yourself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I did first open a WP:DRN on the debate between us on the editorials on Joining the Panderverse. He refused to cooperate. In regards to the targeting, after he and I starting having our "debate" (for lack of a better term) on that article, I was handling the WP:NOTBROKEN issue on The Pandemic Special with another editor when Cjhard, who previously had no interest or interaction on the topic, decided to start reverting those edits as well without explanation. And for the record, I am not the only editor who has been supporting/reverting the NOTBROKEN edits on that page. It is a guideline for a reason. That, to me, shows me that he was targeting my edits, most likely out of spite. It should also be noted that so far he has not contributed or commented in any way on this matter, same as he did with the DRN. So now that I've (hopefully) answered your question, will you please answer mine and explain why you are also reverting the NOTBROKEN guidelines? - SanAnMan (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT BROKEN is a guideline,WP:EDITWAR is a policy. You didn't just canvass another editor, you tried to drag them into a edit war under a controversial pretense ('abusive editor'). Removing an edit repeatedly, and asking others to support your side by removing the other persons edit(even if it is over a 14 byte redirect) is always edit warring outside of very obvious and very blatant vandalism (something I misunderstood recently and put to the test), so in this scenario, an attempt to stop editors getting carried away in a WP:EDITWAR triumphs over a edit war over a guideline. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS -- I've never said that my hands are completely clean. I'll admit that I most likely crossed the line when it comes to 3RR myself. As I stated earlier, I'm a very passionate editor. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we just close this please? I'm getting tired of getting piled on even though I've admitted that I've done some wrong. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No. This board is to examine problematic user behaviour. You can't ask to close your own report because your own problematic behaviour is being examined. You're not the victim of a "pile on". That's what the boomerang references meant. Cjhard (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, discussions like these User_talk:Barry_Wom#Help needed where someone SanAnMan canvassed says they'd report me for edit-warring but for the fact SanAnMan too would get sanctioned and his response being "If so it will be for fighting in what I believe is right" over a piped link redirect demonstrates that his attitude toward edit-warring will not change without sanction. There also seems to be a very long standing issue of SanAnMan accusing people of vandalism over edits he disagrees with, which you see everywhere in this case, and appears to go back to at least 2020, where he accused people of vandalism over whether an episode of television is a "season premiere" or a "standalone special" and stonewalling the conversation against consensus of four other editors and then threatened to to "take this to the admins" (for whatever it's worth, SanAnMan was incorrect in this content dispute, the four other editors were correct - the episode was the season premiere).
    This person is a time-sink who unfortunately doesn't have the competence to collaborate with other editors. Cjhard (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what else I can say at this point. I've apologized for edit warring and will try to be better. As for the comment mentioned earlier, it was posted out of frustration, nothing more. SanAnMan (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Dalton Tan[edit]

    Reposting because it was immediately removed by an archival bot.

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

    (Favor) I've written misinformation(vandalism) several times, so I'm in favor of blocking. They even refuse to engage in dialogue. Therefore, we believe that a fixed-term block of one year or more is appropriate. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and again, Dalton Tan (using the Aviation Novice account), changed the stopping pattern in the station list of the Tōyoko Line article without explanation and against what reliable sources state. Prior to the creation of their second account, Dalton Tan has been ignoring all the previous warnings put in place regarding the introduction of deliberate factual errors into articles which they should not have done. Their persistent disruptive editing (and perhaps also WP:NOR violations) led to several other editors (including me) having to undo or manually revert a number of unsourced and unexplained edits this editor made to more than twenty Railway lines and services articles (further examples including [181], [182] and [183]). Hence, I also agree that blocks to be imposed on both of these accounts. ~ SG5536B (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I actually wanted to Correct the Mistakes I have actually Committed. Based on the TRUE Tokyu Line Map System, the S-Train (Seibu) Service actually stops at Jiyūgaoka Station on the Tokyu Toyoko Line. Aviation Novice (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That still doesn't answer why you were adding misinformation in the first place. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the one who reverted his edits on the Hankyu Kobe Main Line. There is a station called "Tsukaguchi", but he described it as a limited express stop and misinformation. [184] In the case, Tsukaguchi is a limited express slew station, which is evidence of misinformation. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the clean start part of all this: clearly, this is not a clean start. Doing exactly what you were doing before is not a clean start, and the link between the accounts has been publicly acknowledged. We can take this as basically equivalent to a rename and focus on the problematic editing. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also reverted numerous changes by this user. A bunch of my recent changes are all reverts of his changes. See: Special:Contributions/Ergzay. I'd be fine if they were just restricted from any editing on Japanese rail-related pages. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Previously @Versace1608 engaged in disruptive editing via me simply correcting an article as per sources [185] , was uncivil in interaction via foul language, WP:USERTALKSTOP, nationality commentary "you South Africans etc." aimed at myself and @Dxneo - similiar interaction/incident with @DollysOnMyMind here at, ANI and proceeded to list incident ANI: Behaviour of Qaqaamba, here which @Swatjester and @Mackensen, interacted and engaged with.
    2. The editor then proceeded to nominate article Afro fusion , I had created as AfD ( [186] ) as "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail.", As per procedure, I edited/modified the article, expanded it and cited a lot more sources.
    3. @Star Mississippi relisted the article to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus as well as to hear from more independent editors.
    4. The editor, then proceeded to remove sourced information from the article and added "citation needed" templates in the infobox whereas sources provided in the article already substantiate the information as per stylistic influences/ cultural origins and genres sourced in the article itself do not necessitate a seperate source within the infobox. (Special:Diff/1220615604), the same article had a new user vandalize it, recently. (Special:Diff/1218715580)
    5. The article is still under AfD debate, consensus has not been reached and although the editor previously demanded WP:USERTALKSTOP , has added a section on my talk page ([[187]]) bordering WP:HARASS accusing me of not providing sources and "claiming a musician/band as a pioneer" whereas nowhere in the article is that currently stipulated , as well as "threatening" to revert sourced information, as well as that "I am not a credible editor ", "I will monitor all of your edits moving forward", amongst other stipulations.

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

    Versace1608 Is still doing race comments on South African editors even after being warned for it two separate times on "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents"??? This has to stop. At this point I think this repetitive uncivil behavior is block worthy. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I make race comments? If you're going to make a wild accusation like that, you will need to provide proof. For your info, I am black man from Liberia. I only acknowledged you being South African (your nationality, not race) to suggest that you can spend time creating SA-related articles. I never told you that you must stick to editing SA-related articles and cannot edit the Wizkid article. I have created several Nigerian, Ghanaian, Kenyan, and South African-related articles despite not being from these countries. I listen to music from a lot of African countries and since I feel like Wikipedia is still lacking in terms of African-music content, I decided to invest my time creating African-music related content.
    You can edit any article as you please. You took my comments the wrong way and opened an ANI case, accusing me of commenting on your race. You failed to justify why you removed the genres I added to the Wizkid article. I added sources to support my edits and you didn't provide a single source to justify the removal of the genres I added.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This report is very light on diffs. It is also unclear how you allege Versace has violated the policies and guidelines linked.
    • Please link to the "you South Africans" comment alluded to in point 1. If you're referring only to the one in the previous ANI thread, I think it's fair to say that was dealt with. If it's a new one, we need to see it. Similarly, foul language is not in itself policy violating.
    • Nominating an article for AfD is not against policy. If you could show that it was targeting you specifically, that'd be different, but it's clear Versace also has an interest in the topic.
    • I have trouble even parsing the sentence Versace alluded to in your only supplied diff of their edits. A talk page discussion to work out what it should say and if the sources support are preferable to wholesale removal, but removal is not against policy. Especially when it's a sentence so filled with subclauses that I lost the subject half way through.
    • The only thing objectionable I've seen from Versace is You aren't a credible editor, which seems like a mild WP:NPA. Bad, Versace. No cookie. This ANI actually well illustrates why WP:CIV is important; it promises to be a time sink which may have been avoided by keeping cool. Versace, I trust in the future you intend to comment on edits, not on editors? With that understanding, I see no need for further action.
    • However, I think Qaqaamba misunderstands WP:USERTALKSTOP; unless Qaqaamba has asked Versace to not post on Qaqaamba's talk page, there was no USERTALKSTOP violation. If Versace was asked to stop, we need a diff of that request.
    I believe an interaction ban is premature at this time. However, if the two continue to lock horns over Afro Fusion, some sanction may be necessary. I'd suggest, since Afro Fusion has been the source of contention, a time-limited topic ban for both from the subject may be preferable. However, that's a thought for the future; for now, I'd prefer to see them discussing sources and guidelines to sniping and filing ANI reports. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck if I am not a mistaken, you are not an admin. During the previous ANI incident (Behaviour of Qaqaamba) you appeared to repeatedly WP:BLUDGEON additionally insistently claimed to not be able "to see diffs" although, admins could, you are entitled to your opinion however with all due respect you are totally uninivolved and as per last incident tend to suspiciously stipulate one-sided favored comments, thank you for your contributions however if possible, please steer clear. Thank you so much. Qaqaamba (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qaqaamba Being an admin is not required to participate on this noticeboard. As for WP:BLUDGEON, accusations of misbehavior without evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. Please provide evidence or retract the claim. I also don't recall any admin stating they found diffs where I did not. I could be wrong; that's what diffs are for. If an uninvolved party suggests I steer clear, I will likely comply. I am reluctant to do so on your request, however, given that it sounds like you just don't like my take on your report. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck I didn't insist it was obligatory. I merely expressed my viewpoints, referenced past incidents, appreciated your contributions and requested, if possible, for you to please avoid involvement. Qaqaamba (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to nominating the Afro fusion article for deletion, I believe that the genre originated in South Africa without checking the sources. I believed Qaquaamba was a credible editor. It turns out that he isn't. I have the right to challenge info that doesn't support the sources cited. Qaquaamba claimed that Afro fusion was developed in South Africa; he also claimed that Freshlyground pioneered the music genre. None of this is true. The sources he cited doesn't state any of this. Anything added to Wikipedia must be backed by a reliable source. How is Qaquaamba a credible editor when he has failed to provide a reliable source to support the things noted above? I left a note on his talk page and instead of addressing my note, he chose to open an ANI discussion. Does he expect admins to block me for inserting citation needed templates in the info box and removing a sentence that isn't supported by the sources cited in the article? This is ridiculous. All of this can be avoided if he provides a reliable source to support his edits. It's as simple as that.
    He mentioned that I have been disruptive; this is completely false. I only told him to stop posting those warning notes on my talk page. He is the one engaging in edit warring and even when I undid one of his revision to my user page, he kept posting. I had to open a case here before he stopped posting on my talk page.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting to expand on @Qaqaamba's assesment of my relist, in order to hear from more independent editors it might be helpful if those who have weighed in extensively already take a step back. Star Mississippi 16:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of sourced info[edit]

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

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

    Copyright violations (and nothing but)[edit]

    Blocked and rev-del'ed Star Mississippi 16:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    All five edits by Siddhipalande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been copyright violations, two revdeled and three awaiting revdel, all copied from and even usually citing https://insightcommerce.blogspot.com/ . They were warned on 16[188] and 18[189] April 2024 but have persisted on 20[190], 23[191] and 25[192] April. They've also been warned about spam links. Time to block? NebY (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Siddhipalande was warned about copyvio from their first edit but has persisted each day. Account blocked indefinitely and their additions rev-del'd. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New editor mass producing copyvio[edit]

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

    @Trainsandotherthings: I looked at Draft:SECR P Class 178 Nettle and it doesn't seem to be a copyvio of the source given there. It doesn't seem to be a copyvio of [193] either. Am I missing something? Zerotalk 12:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That draft is (was) the only one that wasn't an unambiguous copyright violation. The rest were all deleted by Whqp last night following my speedy deletion requests. It's deleted now anyhow since it was created by Aecws in violation of their block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Cqww (at least with that username) did not "make a whole bunch of drafts in March", but actually has only created one draft ever and moved one existing article in April. Zerotalk 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at Cqww's deleted contributions, there are nine deleted drafts from March. All were deleted as unambiguous copyright violations. --Yamla (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed socks found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian40213 (but not to Christian40213). I'm blocking and tagging. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation; of course you are correct. Zerotalk 08:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hakikatco[edit]

    The user insists that their AI-generated images be included in articles. The images have been removed from the articles by multiple editors [194] [195][196][197], including me, but the user keeps restoring them, despite having been told that those images constitute WP:OR [198] [199]. They also insist on using non-independent sources, thus failing WP:SOURCE, despite having been told by me and other editors [200], [201], [202]. One of the articles they've edited reads like a promotional brochure because of the use of such sources [203]:

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

    — Kaalakaa (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also contains a puzzling reference to a speech in the newspapers delivered by William Gladstone, the British Secretary for Colonies -- to my knowledge, Gladstone never delivered newspapers. EEng 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kaalakaa
      The sentence mentions a speech delivered by Gladstone in the newspaper, not "Gladstone the paperboy" , I think you just want to not understand the written sentence.
      Your argument that "a religious publisher's books on a religious topic cannot be independent" is baseless per your own reference WP:IIS:
      Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.
      I asked you multiple times to prove the conflict of interest or non-independence , but you failed to provide any proof for this. Hakikatco (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion where I asked about non-independence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aisha#Marriage_age_of_Aisha Hakikatco (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a speech delivered by Gladstone in the newspaper – What in the world was Gladstone doing delivering a speech in a newspaper? Sounds decidedly unparliamentary! EEng 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not a speech in the newspaper, a speech in the parliament later mentioned in the newspaper:
      After reading in the newspapers a speech delivered by William Gladstone, the British Secretary for Colonies, where he stated "so long as the Muslims have the Qur’an we shall be unable to dominate them. We must either take it from them or make them lose their love of it."
      Now I rephrased it in the article Hakikatco (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      the parliament later mentioned in the newspaper – Is there a parliament that's not mentioned in the newspaper? EEng 03:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The unmentionable parliament. Levivich (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Parliament was mentioned in the newspaper according to Nursi Hakikatco (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I give up. EEng 02:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hakikatco: I'm not sure if you really can't understand the first paragraph of WP:IIS (in this case, WP:CIR problem) or if you deliberately don't want to understand or listen to people's explanations about it in order to keep using your non-independent sources (in this case WP:IDHT). Either way, it's a waste of other editors' valuable time, and I suggest you drop it.

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

      — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a fairly clear NOTHERE to me. The Kip 20:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is from Said Nursi's own biography, If he says he read that in the newspaper, that means he stated he read that Hakikatco (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The newspaper bit isn’t my problem so much as the rest of this report, which you’ve thus far failed to counter. The Kip 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AI generated image is generated using Chatgpt by only prompt , there is no "original research" as described in WP:OR
    I already countered the other stuff , let me know what you think i didnt Hakikatco (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is self-evident that no one should ever paste anything produced by ChatGPT (or any other modern "AI") into a Wikipedia article under any circumstances. I find it hard to conceive of the level of confusion that would lead to someone thinking it's ok. --JBL (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user in question doesn’t understand why AI-generated content isn’t allowed on Wikipedia, I question whether they have the competence required to constructively contribute here. The Kip 00:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Kip which policy of wikipedia are you referring to? you clearly dont have any competency to name the imaginary policy you keep talking about Hakikatco (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already been told this, WP:OR. You are pushing the button on ChatGPT or a similar service and telling it to generate an image. We don't do that here, any more than you'd be allowed to draw a caricature of a person and use it in an article. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaathras you are not making sense,
    I already responded to the comments about WP:OR vio above,
    AI generated image is generated using Chatgpt by only prompt , there is no "original research" as described in WP:OR
    I already countered the other stuff , let me know what you think i didnt Hakikatco (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Hakikatco (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaathras Are you assumign the opposite? that the content should be original per WP:OR ? Hakikatco (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hakikatco: You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good. — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaalakaa Where is my country Hakikatco (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hakikatco If you're looking for a possible policy against using an AI generated image in an article, it's to do with copyright. It's well-documented that AI such as ChatGPT use external sources such as other artists' work to generate an image such as the one you created. According to a certain US court ruling, that's okay; it counts as fair use. The problem is that usage of non-free images, let alone an image that can only possibly be used under fair use because it itself was also generated under fair use, is expressly disallowed by WP:NFCC unless no free alternatives exist, which probably doesn't apply in your situation since many of the articles you've attempted to add your images to already have free images anyway. And there's no possible method of licensing it under a free license, either; fair use, if I recall correctly, does not allow you to relicense the result under a free license. Do take this with a grain of salt; US copyright law isn't my specialty; but that's one major roadblock to you using an AI image in an article, I'm afraid. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. Call it NOTHERE, CIR, persistent IDHT, whatever. Hakikatco should not be editing here. Woodroar (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block continues to edit-war their preferred shoddy AI images among other things into articles. Since they will not stop on their own, a preventative block seems necessary. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kaalakaa Disruptive editor[edit]

    The user has been making disrupting edits to the Wikipedia content [204] [205] [206] [207]

    - The user deleted a 105 years old photo claiming "it seems AI generated" [208]

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

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

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

    All of these edits are fine. I would have made them myself. I have to laugh at File:Bediuzzaman after Russian camp.png, which you uploaded on 17 August 2023 and sourced to Flickr, where it just happened to have been uploaded on the same date. If not AI generated, this image has clearly been manipulated to the point of uselessness. Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be a very manipulative copy of this image,[209] there's many different copies online but I can't find details of where it originally comes from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Repeated Statement[edit]

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

    @Robert McClenon: Thank you for the notification. But just to clarify, it was @Hakikatco who filed the DRN case [210], and they didn't even list and notify the two other editors who also had taken part in the discussion at Talk:Aisha: [211], namely @Anachronist and @Toddy1. If I'm not mistaken, this one was closed for the same reason, right? — Kaalakaa (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed this comment to Level 3 so that it does not appear to be addressed to you. And, yes, their statement that the previous DRN was prematurely archived was wrong. It was archived after it was closed due to failure to notify. I have not tried to mediate or assess this dispute, and am not at this time commenting on who is at fault, and am not commenting at this time on whether there are competence issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more time, for anyone. Do not forum shop by filing reports about the same dispute at two or more noticeboard at almost the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A problem is that sometimes users file things that mean something to them, but mean nothing to readers. Take this DR case filed by Hakikatco at 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC). It was closed because Hakikatco failed to notify the other editor. Hakikatco's complaint says: my content was deleted due to invalid reasons, the user Kaalakaa seems to manipulate WP policies to remove my content, and points us at Talk:Aisha#Marriage age of Aisha.
    If you read that section of Talk:Aisha, you can see that Hakikatco appears have misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL which talks about the need for multiple high quality sources - see Hakikatco's comment of 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC). I thought it was tendentious editing by Hakikatco, but if we are charitable, it might have been a competence with the English-language issue.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toddy1 Well I notified @Kaalakaa who started deleting my content, sorry I didnt notify everyone of you
    Maybe I misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL>, but too many of you were attacking so I got busy. Anyway, multiple high quality sources agreed with this theory including Islamicity.org https://www.islamicity.org/3379/at-what-age-did-aisha-marry-the-prophet-muhammad-slw/ , many Islamic and non Islamic book stores are selling this book of Haylamaz https://wardahbooks.com/products/aishawifecompanionscholar
    https://www.rjjulia.com/book/9781597842662
    Also the fact that alternate age theories were listed 1300 years ago by Tabari ( He stated she was 12 or 13) and other well known Islamic scholars, makes this theory on her age not alone. Hakikatco (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hakikatco: So, an apologetic article from a religious site, Islamicity, is what you consider as "multiple high-quality sources." And because "many Islamic and non-Islamic bookstores" sell the author's book, this means it has met WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Not only did you completely ignore the lengthy explanations from multiple editors regarding WP:IIS, which is one of the criteria for WP:SOURCE, but your understanding of WP:EXCEPTIONAL is also completely wrong. Not to mention the various issues regarding you above. Yeah, this appears to be a clear-cut WP:CIR & WP:IDHT case. — Kaalakaa (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article Hakikatco (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay. — Kaalakaa (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and no , i admitted i misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL,
    On the other side According to Muslim community Islamicity is high quality website and active for 29 years, and many bookstores publishing the article supporting this theory shows the endorsement of it Hakikatco (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Oh, I see. — Kaalakaa (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you can mock whatever you want but this is the fact Hakikatco (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of "fact" doesn't matter here. What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers. — Kaalakaa (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AManWithNoPlan being disruptive and abusive[edit]

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

    AMwNP put a warning that the link, if followed, would take you to a virus. That was half right, in that the link just takes you to a ULR usurpation nonsense site. You templated them, and they reverted it, as is their right to do. Perhaps rudely, but templating veterans is also seen as rude, especially when you accused him of being disruptive when he clearly wasn't. This tempest in a teacup doesn't belong to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting the first warning while calling the OP clueless just made the OP escalate the warning, and then calling the OP an idiot just escalated it even more, that's precisely why no personal attacks is a policy, at least the templates are worded politely. Still, even if you minimized that, I do agree that this likely doesn't need intervention (yet). – 2804:F1...07:DBA8 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AManWithNoPlan, I cannot imagine any scenario where calling a fellow editor an idiot is anything other than a personal attack and a policy violation. Would you like to take this opportunity to withdraw that insult? Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AManWithNoPlan, also, since I decided to look because of the summary, what is this?: Special:Diff/1220775010.
    If you really think the website tries to install malware (it sure looks pretty suspicious, but more in a scam way with the crypto ad it took me to), don't insert a link to it in the middle of the text, see also WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL about not linking(or hiding if it's official) URLs with malware. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:3468:323E:5807:DBA8 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh it did try to install a fake antivirus after claiming I had a virus on the second visit(even though websites can only prompt you to select a file, not read any file they want), lovely. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:3468:323E:5807:DBA8 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was still trying to decide how to still have the doi, but bot the link. That link varies from car ads (I am currently helping a friend buy a car) to malware, phishing, scams, and failing to work at all. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind you, the doi link didn't redirect me to anywhere suspicious, though I didn't try downloading it as it required logging in and that's a sure way of getting spam. The link in the diff I gave was a different one, to the website of a journal. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:7054:6078:F91D:3B4A (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Headbomb's assessment of the link is correct, the OP should be reminded of AGF and the reported editor should be reminded of NPA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Revirvlkodlaku: Please think before templating someone. A malicious link should be removed, not highlighted. AManWithNoPlan did not remove the link but added a note. That was not desirable but putting a template on their talk was breathtakingly inappropriate. What about the actual issue? Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about someone revdeling that malware link before someone comes to grief? EEng 11:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. As it was the "Official Publication of Pakistan Research Evolution Scientific Society", not the university's (2014 archive), I've removed it from the current article but would be glad to see it revdel'd. NebY (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Ugh. It seems the URL was added in 2013, 216 edits ago. NebY (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued poor article creations by User:737-200fan[edit]

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

    It's obvious that the user's creation of non-viable articles is making an unacceptable amount of work for other users. They are pretty new, and should preferably be getting more experience, especially with sourcing, by improving existing articles before creating new articles, which is one of the more difficult things to do. I would be willing to do something about it, but I'm not sure I can. If I partial-block the user from "creating new pages and uploading new files", which is an option, that'll presumably also prevent them from creating drafts as part of the AfC process. Does that mean it has to be done as a topic ban (as Fram says) rather than a block? I don't think a single admin can do that. Aiming for a discussion here with a consensus to community topic ban seems a bit like shooting skeet with a cannon, but perhaps that's what we must do. Unless somebody else has a bright idea. Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't get the feeling this user is intentionally disruptive, let alone malicious, they're probably just excited about this cool new thing they've discovered and merrily going about creating articles without realising (and possibly caring) that they're leaving quite a mess in their wake. I think it would be a pity if they had to blocked altogether, that's such a buzz-kill (!), but somehow they need to be helped to stay on track and apply the speed limiter so they can become a net-positive for the project, which IMO they currently aren't. The messages on their talk page haven't done the trick, so maybe a short block to get their attention, along with a 'friendly but firm' reminder to revise WP:V and WP:N, and requirement to work through AfC until they can demonstrate they got it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that getting experience by improving existing articles is usually a good way for new editors to start. Continuing to bang away at article creation when they are not yet able to do that harder task successfully is not as good a way to move forward. If their articles really are that non-viable, then creating them via AFC just makes more work for the AFC folks. So p-blocking page-creation would be reasonable IMO. Is it technically possible to yank confirmed to prevent mainspace creation? DMacks (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has just created Fosh Airways, again, with no notability. I've tagged the article for CSD under A7, and I support the idea of requiring them to go through AfC, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it be user:Jonathan Yip? Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly doubt that - not in 2024. I'm just about to draftify Japan Universal System Transport to see if they can work on it to get it up to WP:Mainspace standard. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much will happen, I guess, since Bbb23 has blocked them as a sock of Aviation fan guy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem solved, then. 🙂 Bishonen | tålk 12:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Working on solving the related problems on Commons as well. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spermworld edit war[edit]

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

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

    Disruptive edits and personal attacks by User:MRWH359[edit]

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

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

    After being warned to stop using personal attacks at 02:24 UTC, 02:50 UTC and 02:50 UTC, they continued to do so in the edit summary of this edit [212] to Irish indentured servants at 03:10 UTC and in this edit summary of this edit [213] to Black people in Ireland at 03:13 UTC.

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

    I was in the act of typing a long response to them on their talkpage and was edit-conflicted. We'll see what their response is - they need to start taking advice seriously and lose the "i'm right and you must be my opponent" attitude. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I independently noticed that on Black people in Ireland, relevant text was excised by MRWH359 for no apparent reason other than "clarification". I reinstated it, but am aware that there's a POV being pushed here - Alison talk 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved observer) MRWH359's edits reek of POV-pushing, and their aggressive edit summaries fall afoul of several behavioral policies and guidelines. The sooner they are prevented from editing on these topics, the better. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    - Hello,

    Not sure what the procedure here is as was mentioned I am new, I think my tone comes across sharper than intend as we are on keyboards not face to face so it's likely misunderstandings can happen on both sides of the fence. regarding "After being warned to stop using personal attacks at 02:24 UTC, 02:50 UTC and 02:50 UTC, they continued to do so in the edit summary of this edit [1] to Irish indentured servants at 03:10 UTC and in this edit summary of this edit [2] to Black people in Ireland at 03:13 UTC." to clarify as far as I'm aware I never made any personal attacks I don't believe pointing out someone's political bias is a personal attack epically if they proudly display on their personnel page, you may feel differently if they majority do then I apologies. Also I launched no "personal attack" on Acroterion I just asked if he was friends with Celtbrowne as only I was being talked with and not him as an edit war takes two to tango so I wanted to be sure he was asking in an official position and not doing a friend a favor which he then clarified.

    I removed terms like Far-Right because there was absolutely no proven claims then or since of any far-right activity there was no skin-heads no nazi flags no far right organizations nothing at all the term was bandied about as a catch all phrase. Countless 1st hand video from the event easily found on twitter which I was attempting to add as source (put I'm still trying to figure that part out) can back this up as well as the fact that many there where peaceful and condemned looting from all members of the community.

    If celtbrowne messaged me personally we could have discussed he just reverted and accused me of editorializing which is what he too was doing so I did the same as his edit comment thing was a couple of words with no reasoning (as far as I could see)

    The Black people in Ireland one I added further details to the peoples named lives their own biographies back up what I stated and changed a line which confused a philosopher with a historian and said multiple historians but listed only one and the philosopher.

    The Irish indentured servants one called them "immigrants" they clearly were not they were servants and slaves there is already an article which supports that view called Irish slaves myth we don't need a second one.

    User:JayBeeEll- everyone is POV pushing I'm just attempting to Neutralize the language as it seems to be extreme one way or other it should be centralist and neutral and your assumptions about me and my intent are hostile and frankly offensive. Look at my other recent edits I didn't just focus on these. - I don't see how a minor edit war one time warrants a ban that's a bit extreme like stoning an adulterer or chopping off a hand for stealing bread especially considering I haven't continued the edit war and have continued on with other edits elsewhere.

    User:Alison- the "relevant" text wasn't backed by any sources and was just unsubstantiated opinion in the early 20th century the British had the Windrush scheme the Irish government didn't have anything similar until the late 20th century we just had education visas for people from all over the world, we are two separate countries so we have separate laws.

    User:CeltBrowne- Your entitled to your opinion I'm entitled to mine it, I'm curious as to why you don't want the language neutralized or the identity and circumstances (which were pertinent & I added fairly) of the attacker to be put early in the article instead of smuggled in at the end, though that's probably best discussed in the talk page or a PM I'm happy to discuss. -- I noticed you added this "Neither my editing or creating of an article equates to me endorsing any views expressed in the article. If I'm writing a biographical article about someone, it's because I find them interesting or significant, not necessarily because I agree with their views. " at 12:38, 26 April 2024‎ I just want to clarify if I had seen this I wouldn't have made assumptions, so apologies for my assumption

    User:Acroterion- I am happy to take advice as has been pointed out I am new here and still learning the ropes as it where and thank you for your statement on my talk page that you believe I could be a valuable contributor on Wikipedia I appreciate that.

    In closing I'm only trying to make edits in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this is supposed to be an encyclopedia the language should be neutral.

    P.s. Just out of curiosity is there a summary page for rules and regulations and what not because when I've gone looking there is just endless rabbit holes that would make the library of Alexandria blush and no simple ten commandments as it where. - also I don't know how to tag people so I linked your user pages not sure if that does it.

    Cheers for letting me say my piece, wish you all the best.

    Kind regards,

    MRWH359 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    as far as I'm aware I never made any personal attacks I don't believe pointing out someone's political bias is a personal attack epically if they proudly display on their personnel page
    My "political bias" is not proudly displayed on my Userpage: If you're referring to images on my Userpage there is a clear disclaimer at the bottom of the image section that they were chosen on the basis of quality of the image, not my personal feelings about the subjects. The subjects in my images are both political and non-political, and those that are political are from all across the political spectrum.
    But even if they weren't, it would not justify attacking my edits as being because of a political bias when I clearly stated my edits were based on Wikipedia policy, and it should have been taken on WP:Good Faith that they were.
    You edit summaries, as many users have pointed out, were hostile and personal. If you don't see that and keep doing the same type of edit summaries, I believe you're not going to have a long run on Wikipedia.

    I noticed you added this "Neither my editing or creating of an article equates to me endorsing any views expressed in the article. If I'm writing a biographical article about someone, it's because I find them interesting or significant, not necessarily because I agree with their views. " at 12:38, 26 April 2024‎ I just want to clarify if I had seen this I wouldn't have made assumptions, so apologies for my assumption
    That notice has been there for literally years; I've just put it in bold and red for reasons other editors can discern from this conversation.

    I'm not getting the specifics of the articles, but as I've said from the start: You have to source anything you add to Wikipedia from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. You were adding commentary to the articles that was not supported by cited sources. Going forward, WP:Twitter (generally) is NOT a reliable source. What you personally witnessed is NOT a reliable source. Do not remove things that are sourced to reliable, secondary sources of information such as News Organisations/Newspapers. You should be basing your information on News Organisations/Newspapers for current affairs, and books/journals for historical events.

    If you're overwhelmed by Wikipedia policy, please take the tutorials on Help:Introduction. These will help you learn and understand how Wikipedia works. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MRWH359: This isn't the place for indepth discussion on content but you really need to learn how wikipedia is written if you want to edit here. You claimed above 'the "relevant" text wasn't backed by any sources and was just unsubstantiated opinion' but this is incorrect. In fact the text you removed was sourced to this ref [214] an that ref seems to precisely support the text you removed "Conrad's father was one of many African students who had come to study in Dublin. In the 1960s, the Irish government ran schemes supporting them in learning skills that would help them build up their own newly independent states." Yes the reference wasn't given next to the sentence you removed but it was given after the very next sentence. And it's perfectly normal, often preferred, that a reference will be at the end of multiple sentences if that references supports multiple sentences. So if you see several sentences then one or more references you should generally check those references to see if they support the earlier sentences. And it shouldn't be particularly surprising that a reference that supports the 1962 thing would also support the earlier sentence. Also your Windrush etc comment shows why even when removing something you need to be very wary about WP:OR. Your belief that this isn't something that happened was clearly incorrect, and also this was fairly unrelated to Windrush which involved people often permanently immigrating to the UK (although often without the government really wanting them to), whereas as the text in our article, and the reference explains, many of these people only stayed in Ireland temporarily. As I said, this isn't the place for content discussions but I'm trying to illustrate why OR is very risky since you have removed sourced text based on several misunderstandings on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyxfr pretending to be an admin[edit]

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

    Two possibilities: Either they're a sock socking. The use of hidden comments with like six edits in their contributions suggests past experience with wikis at least. Or they're the greenest of newbies and should be called in. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that they're just posing, and may have just enough experience as an IP to know what code to use. I've left them a warning and removed the moderator business from their userpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is only tangentially related, but I do feel like we should not be assuming someone is a sock because they recognized an already-existing HTML comment and used it. That does not demand any kind of familiarity with Mediawiki in general, much less enwiki in particular. It only requires extremely basic knowledge of HTML, or even just general inquisitiveness when they see text in the edit tab that isn't shown in the article. I don't mean to specifically call you out on this, Simonm223; I feel like I see this kind of assumption that "basic competency in any facet of editing implies socking" increasingly often from all quarters, and I think we've lost the plot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I have socks on the mind a bit with how backlogged WP:SPI is. Got to the point I was half-tempted to ask for adminship just to help move it along but it does mean socks are on my mind. I'll strike. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's a visual edit, so there's a specific button to add invisible comments
    so i don't think any socking or html experience is necessary for that part cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is that button, by the way? I don’t know how to add hidden comments in VE. Zanahary (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Insert > More > Invisible comment Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Writ Keeper, you clearly know far too much about plots. I demand that you sign in under your original account! ——Serial Number 54129 13:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I mean, all right, I guess. Under your original account (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! 4 points. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Brilliant! :D ——Serial Number 54129 14:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting the fact they even attempted this stunt at all represents a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's advanced user rights work. "Moderators" or administrators actually don't have any extra power to enforce their preferred version of articles at all, much less threaten to "ban" users over it, as stipulated by WP:INVOLVED. That it was clearly done only to try to gain extra leverage in their topic area is quite concerning indeed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mteiritay at Sulaiman Bek[edit]

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

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

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

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

    As my request for admin intervention seems to have been lost among the many other requests (almost three days without any answer now), I have decided to add it down here again, in the hope that someone will see it.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect Mteiritay is not really a newcomer. Aintabli (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting theory, but looking at their contributions, the user doesn't seem to tend to Kurdish but rather to Arab nationalism. Ermanarich (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ermanarich, the name of the sockmaster should not fool you. I suggest you to compare their edits to those of the confirmed socks. Aintabli (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aintabli, oh ok, thank you for that info. It didn't even cross my mind that the user could indeed be a sockpuppet, but I don't really know how to even confirm if they are either. So how is the issue going to proceed now?--Ermanarich (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already filed a report, but there is a huge backlog. Mteiritay also does not appear to steer away from edit-warring at Al-Bayati, which they have trollishly moved to Al-Bayat (tribe) to “make shorter”. Not really a good look. Is it the time to take action? They are also ignoring this thread. Aintabli (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment of theirs convinces me that they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX by POV-pushing. Aintabli (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of WP:Circular sources and Disruptive editing to promote inflated record sales on Chris Brown's page[edit]

    Instantwatym" has been inaccurately inflating Chris Brown's sales figures by copying certifications without reliable sources, then allowing the media to circulate these false numbers as actual sales. For instance, on August 8, 2023, they claimed Brown's record sales were 217 million without any substantiated evidence], merely citing a Wikipedia page without understanding that certifications do not equate to sales, nor is Wikipedia a credible source. Despite multiple reversions by users, "Instantwatym" persists in promoting this inflated figure, likely for promotional reasons 1, 2, 3, 4. This behavior traces back to July 18, 2021, when they first altered the sales figure from 140 million to 160 million, then to 193 million, 197 million, 217 million, and 219 million without providing valid sources. Notably, "Instantwatym" has faced previous blocks for similar misconduct by 'Ponyo'. Kindly review and address this issue accordingly. Thank you for your attention to this matter.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Behaviorally, this seems remarkably similar to the banned user Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs), who used sockpuppets to insert fabricated positive reviews into articles about Chris Brown's albums. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso/Archive. — Newslinger talk 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the accounts were found to be unrelated in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso/Archive § 23 February 2022, despite the similarly disruptive editing patterns. — Newslinger talk 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content dispute. Looking at this more closely, this seems to be a content dispute concerning whether song streams should be factored into an artist's sales numbers for the claim "Brown has sold [x] million records worldwide", as discussed at Talk:Chris Brown § Sales data in lead is not accurate. I recommend resolving this dispute by opening a request for comment on Talk:Chris Brown and notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (WT:WPMU). — Newslinger talk 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussion and your edits on the article are more indicative of disuprutive editing and you constantly pushing the goal post per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
    1. The crux of this dispute is your assertion that certified units ≠ sales due to inflation in the streaming era. This is more of a personal opinion than anything else. Not an objective argument. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
    2. You have also asserted that any secondary source reporting a figure that isnt 140 million (the one sales figure you agree with) is violating WP:CIRCULAR. Despite the fact that the same source Yahoo finance has reported 140 million and 197 million. Even when this was pointed out to you on the talk page you declared that 197 million per Yahoo finance is violating WP:CIRCULAR but 140 million per Yahoo finance is not violating WP:CIRCULAR. Again, see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
    3. Another one of your assertions per the talk page discussion is that any secondary source arriving at a certified units total previously reported on Wikipedia is violating WP:CIRCULAR. As if editors of other publications cant independently arrive at the same total by tallying an artists certifications. Again, see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, something you are using interchangeably with WP:CIRCULAR.
    4. After you gave up on the argument that Yahoo finance sources are violating WP:CIRCULAR, all the while paradoxically restoring the 140 million figure per the same Yahoo finance source... you included an Albany Herland source reporting 140 million. Mind you this 140 million figure was present on Wikipedia article and the linked best-selling artist article before the Albany Herland article being published. Per your own logic in point #3, wouldnt this source be violating WP:CIRCULAR by taking information from Wikipedia? Or do you agree that editors of publications can arrive at a certified units total figure independently per their own research? Again youre edits are entirely contradictory.
    On a somewhat related note, since you brought the issue of disruptive editing on this article, I noticed you used a false edit summary here to remove something from the lead that you disliked per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and stated that you couldnt anything pertaining to this in the cited sources. When in fact the HipHopDx and Revolt sources mention it. Instantwatym (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks part 2[edit]

    Already a group of socks were found globally blocked and its another group continues and found as socks. I request admins to look at this issues and take necessary action. Thanks. AntanO 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright violations after two warnings[edit]

    79lives (talk · contribs), as shown on their talk page, has been warned at least twice for adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Today, after a notification from Copypatrol, I found two more articles (one two)that they had inserted copyrighted text into after that last warning. (Note that one of the articles was a WP:TRANSVIO) (and one they had inserted copyrighted text into just before the warning, yet not cleared up upon being told about the issue). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AzorzaI[edit]

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

    I am reporting this user as per WP:HOUND. Before we proceed, it's important to establish the context. AzorzaI and I have been involved in numerous disputes and edit wars across a variety of articles for months now, such as Andrea II Muzaka and the Battle of Kosovo. AzorzaI was blocked on a separate occasion by ToBeFree for edit-warring on a number of articles with me and a number of editors - I did not share this block. The edit histories and the TP sections of these articles are littered with back-and-forth disputes between this user and myself, but because they are not the purpose of this report, I do not think it is necessary to provide diffs. Anyways, for cyclical, unending TP discussions and long drawn-out edit wars on articles, namely Battle of Kosovo, both AzorzaI and I received a partial block from the article by admin ToBeFree for 3 months. Not long after the block expired, AzorzaI has gone ahead and begun another dispute over the same content as before - [215] - by trying to use the results of a separate RfC to justify the removal of sourced content elsewhere in the infobox - [216]. Keep in mind what was removed was not the subject of the RfC.

    Rather than react and immediately edit war over the same content that I was blocked for in the past, I went straight to ToBeFree to ensure that they were aware of AzorzaI's behaviour - [217] - and asked them for advice on how to proceed so that I may avoid a block. I was told that reverting would be OK, and that participating in the TP discussion should definitely occur. Nonetheless, even though I did not actually tag or mention AzorzaI directly (meaning they would not have received a notification about me discussing their behaviour on ToBeFree's TP), they still showed up - [218].

    This has set off a number of events on numerous articles. So, I am going to report AzorzaI for three main points which indicate that AzorzaI is actively hounding me.

    1. ToBeFree's Talk Page: As I previously mentioned, to avoid engaging in the same behaviour that I was partially blocked for in the past, I messaged ToBeFree directly on their TP asking for advice - [219]. I purposefully refrained from tagging or mentioning AzorzaI so that they wouldn't receive any indication of my discussion with ToBeFree. Nonetheless, they somehow still showed up to the discussion - [220]. Keep in mind I have not been involved in any currently ongoing dispute or discussion with AzorzaI up until this point, and haven't interacted with them in a while, so there is no real reason for them to check my activity or track my edits. Nonetheless, it would seem that after AzorzaI made controversial edits on the Battle of Kosovo, they expected a negative reaction from me and decided to check on my activity; in my contributions, they would have seen that I approached ToBeFree regarding the matter, which is how they ended up becoming involved in the discussion. Now, this on its own may not be sufficient proof that this user is trying to harrass me via WP:WIKIHOUNDING, leading me to my next two points.
    1. Peja: So, after AzorzaI became involved in my discussion regarding their concerning behaviour on ToBeFree's TP, AzorzaI decided to stalk my edits and follow me to the article on Peja. I made an initial edit on the 26th of April - [221] - in which I removed a line that was sourced to a dead link since January 2016. I did not remove it simply because it's a dead link (as per the guidelines set by WP:KDL), I removed it because it is not verifiable in the slightest as it was never cited properly in the first place. Not only is the line sourced to a dead link, but there is no title, no author's first and last name, no publication date, no page, no ISBN etc etc available in the citation. WP:KDL is all well and good when we actually have information regarding the source that the information comes from, but in this case, there is no guarantee that this information is not completely falsified or was pulled out of thin air. Anyways, AzorzaI followed me there and reverted me - [222] - and has since begun a discussion on the TP in which they fail to grasp the concept of the Wiki policy they are invoking - [223]. You cannot do research on a source to verify it if there is no source in the first place - WP:KDL doesn't really fit here. So, we've established that AzorzaI stalked my recent edits to follow me to ToBeFree's TP, after which they followed me to Peja, and they've also followed me to another article as well...
    1. Thomas Preljubović: Keep in mind that AzorzaI has never edited this article in the past. I initially made a change on the 26th of April, which was reverted by AzorzaI on the 27th of April - [224]. This revert wasn't too bad - I had mistaken Brendan Osswald's source that was already cited on this article (published in 2011) for another source also authored by Brendan Osswald (published in 2007). I rectified this by adding Osswald's other source with quotes to justify the change - [225] - but AzorzaI somehow decided to continue edit warring and reverted me again - [226]. To justify their removal of sourced content, AzorzaI claimed that WP:AGEMATTERS supported their revert - [227]. Keep in mind that there are only 4 years between each source, and the newer source does not consist of Osswald refuting any previous statement regarding Thomas' self-styled epithet, so there was really no justification for the revert. So, even though we can prioritise Osswald's newer work, it does not refute the information provided by the previous work. All in all, AzorzaI stalked my edits and followed me to an article they have never edited in the past to oppose me simply for the sake of opposing me, which is something they have done in the past - see the Battle of Vajkal for example, an article I completely overhauled with expansions and reworkings of sourced content. AzorzaI became involved in the dispute I had with another editor - [228] - and even though they were participating in WP:CPP and brought absolutely zero sources to the discussion, my side of the dispute came out on top since I was the only one using WP:RS bibliography to support my additions and changes. As such, my changes remain on said article to this day, because they are actually sourced.

    Overall, more diffs and instances can be provided which indicate that AzorzaI has been following me around on a number of articles by stalking my contributions only to oppose me for the sake of opposing me, even if they are incorrect in doing so. Quite frankly, I've had enough, particularly because they just followed me around on three different articles (ToBeFree's TP, Peja, Thomas Preljubovic) in a single day. They have misused policies and utilised zero sources of their own to back up whatever viewpoint they adopt in order to oppose me, and it's even indicative of WP:NOTHERE to an extent. As such, I wrote a warning on AzorzaI's TP - [229] - in which I asked them to stop harrassing me via WP:WIKIHOUNDING, or else I would have to report them to the admins. In response, they deleted my warning - [230] - with the following edit summary: then don't actively breach wiki guidelines. So, AzorzaI is therefore indirectly admitting to hounding me on Wikipedia and following my edits, but apparently it's OK for them to do so as they are falsely claiming that I am breaching Wiki guidelines. In reality, I am not breaching any guidelines, as I have described in my three main points above. Additionally, I posted an edit-warring warning template on their TP to try and discourage them from continuing to edit war - [231] - but that's besides the point.

    This report is not about content; it is focused on AzorzaI's behaviour which fits the description of WP:HOUND: Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia..., The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing... etc etc. AzorzaI's weird, obsessive behaviour is becoming unsettling and annoying. It is an uncomfortable feeling knowing that there is some random online stranger somewhere in the world that wakes up and decides to track my online editing activity on Wikipedia seemingly to oppose me for no apparent reason, even if they are wrong. I don't know if it's a personal vendetta, an act of revenge or some weird obsession with me, but it's not in-line with Wikipedia policies to say the least. I do not want to keep engaging in cyclical edit wars and pointless TP discussions, nor do I want to keep risking being blocked again for disputes involving the same user as last time. It would be greatly appreciated if an admin took some sort of action here, because enough is enough. I do not volunteer on Wikipedia to be harassed by obsessive strangers. Botushali (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am not bothered by admin intervention, I'm confused by the perception of victimization. My interactions with Botushali have consistently been constructive, yet I find myself now labeled as an "obsessive stranger". What's particularly puzzling is Botushali's decision to issue edit war warnings to me, despite having made more reverts on articles than I have;
    Peja. 12 (Botushali) vs. 1 (AzozaI)
    Thomas Preljubović: 123 (Botushali) vs. 12 (AzorzaI)
    Furthermore, the current dispute does not revolve around the content of the articles. Let me emphasize that this isn't about "hounding anyone"; it's about taking necessary steps to rectify what I see as ongoing breaches of guidelines and refusal to listen. I've already reached out to an admin on my user talkpage regarding this matter. However, if other admins are willing to investigate these concerns further, I would greatly appreciate their involvement. --Azor (talk). 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our interactions have most definitely not consistently been constructive… In fact, they’ve been the opposite for about 95% of the time. Some of the most frustrating experiences I’ve had in Wikipedia have involved you.
    Also, you’re miscounting reverts - I don’t know if that’s on purpose or accidental. The first supposed “revert” for Peja is not a revert, and the first two that you counted as “reverts” on Preljubović‘s article are also not reverts. You should strike them, because it’s blatantly incorrect. Botushali (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    😔 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Shams lnm[edit]

    The above editor has attempted to enforce their stylistic preferences on the article Spanish battleship Jaime I; there was an initial set of reverts a month ago, followed by a discussion they where they did not behave with particular civility. They abandoned the discussion for about a month, and then showed back up today to edit-war their preferences back into the article. Their responses do not indicate a good-faith effort to discuss the issue, nor does their refusal to actually engage the points I made in the discussion in March. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your "points" were full of basic/rudimentary errors in grammar and syntax [you were unable to tell the difference between a noun and an adjective] and solecisms that I corrected. Shams lnm (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We speak in plain English here, and nobody should have to search Google to figure out what on earth you're talking about (which I just had to do with solecisms; just say 'grammar'!). Your time will be ending here soon if you don't stop edit warring about basic grammar, taking your toys and going home for awhile before surprising OP with a threat of blocking over two words and a thread that reads like 'bored English professor was told to stop giving all their students F papers marked all red and decided to fight here about two 'thes' instead'. I also follow the 'comma before name' rule, but realize that it's not a law to get all wound up about. Find something else to do. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read again what has been written so far and by whom and try (just try) to be more fair, objective, and impartial (if you can...). Shams lnm (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not attack other editors, which you should not have to be warned about, but I will now. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep your warnings to yourself. Shall I do the same thing and warn you not to be biased? Is it okay when Parsecboy attacks me with ironies (suggesting that I shall write letters to the editors of The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Telegraph) and threatens to have me blocked? Apparently, this is perfectly fine with you. Bravo! Shams lnm (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord, stop attacking other editors. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good god almighty. As it turns out there are differences between different Englishes on whether "the" should precede a phrase like "military historian Albert Nofi", and fighting over it is silly. It's not a matter of grammar; it's a matter of style. User:Parsecboy, I don't understand why you let yourself get goaded into that mud fight (and you are confusing function [use in a sentence/phrase] with category [part of speech]). Shams lnm, you actually haven't presented an argument on that talk page besides your own opinion; at least your opponent pointed to a number of examples from reliable sources/authorities. Personally I prefer the version without the determinative (self-respecting grammarians born after the 19th century don't use the category "article" anymore), but I wouldn't be surprised if Shamns lnm would find themselves blocked at some point for an uncollegial attitude. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is absolutely an argument over a style issue. Unsurprisingly, we have an article on it: False title. Woodroar (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shams lnm: Let's say you are 100% correct about the issue. You will still be blocked to stop the disruption from your uncollegial commentary if it continues. However, you are not 100% correct. As pointed out above, it's a question of style and assertions of correctness simply reveal limited reading. By all means, argue that your style is superior, but that needs reasoned argument not the debating tactics shown at Talk:Spanish battleship Jaime I#Grammar. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shams lnm, editors far more scholarly than I have explained why the grammar content dispute is trivial and that there is no right answer for you to impose by the force of your will. I am here to try to explain to you that this is a collaborative project and that personal attacks on your colleagues are simply not acceptable here. Your personal conduct in that whole discussion at several locations was simply not acceptable. If your wish is to insult and attack other people online, then there are many troll sites where that type of reprehensible behavior is accepted. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not among those websites. Consider this a warning. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no right answer to impose by the force of one’s will; agreed. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; personal attacks are unacceptable. Shams lnm (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bandwagon98[edit]

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

    217.137.18.193[edit]

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

    Repeated legal threats at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ratcliff (producer); WP:NOTHERE. Jfire (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I read an admin say on AIV a day or 2 ago that NOTHERE does not apply to IPs. First I'd heard of it, but no reason to doubt them.
    Anyways, yeah "[..] Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily."(diff), not only a WP:LEGALTHREAT, but textbook attempt at intimidation. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:5536:1B4B:F45C:3635 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an admin decides an account is WP:NOTHERE, the account is likely to be indefinitely blocked. An IP is very unlikely to be indefinitely blocked but if edits from that IP are NOTHERE over a long period, the IP will be blocked for a long time.
    The IP should be informed about no legal threats but I would not get excited in this case because it is very likely that what the IP suggests is correct and he is very annoyed that a random from the internet is arguing that John Ratcliff (producer) (where the IP is apparently the subject) be deleted. Not everyone has to be satisfied and editors should be willing to overlook venting under these circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the IP was template warned by the OP about not making legal threats (which links the policy) on their talk page about ~16 minutes before the one I quoted (they had made more, prior to that one, in the AFD), it's probably why the OP escalated things to here. Knowing if they have read it or not is harder, however. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:5536:1B4B:F45C:3635 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they should be blocked, just so they notice that this discussion is happening and stop escalating with phrases like "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are." (diff). It's odd really, that they decided to go so hard on the person who highlighted 2 sources to help establish notability for the article so it isn't deleted... – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:5536:1B4B:F45C:3635 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP address for six months for the overt and repeated legal threats made by the person behind the IP address. An IP address cannot be WP:NOTHERE but the person currently using the IP certainly can be. The IP address could be reassigned tomorrow and the new person behind it could start editing constructively about butterfies, rainbows and unicorns. Unlikely but possible. If this person is bound and determined to sue someone for enforcing well established policy on this private website, they can sue me. I disclose my real name, my home town and I am very easy to find. I will, of course, fight back hard against any such spurious lawsuit. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears that the IP has an account Johnratcliff (talk · contribs) that appears to only be here to create an article on themself. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The account appears to have acknowledged that the IP's edits were his own, so I have blocked the account as well until such time as they explicitly withdraw those threats. Girth Summit (blether) 13:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it weren’t for the case involving me and Parsecboy, I wouldn’t have noticed this. You are too strict with an individual (John Ratcliff) who is new at Wikipedia and is not fully familiar with how the project works. Try being constructive and show empathy. It is clear (I haven’t the slightest doubt) that John Ratcliff is honest, has good intentions, isn’t trolling around. My understanding is that, as the long-time producer and manager of a-Ha, John Ratcliff definitely deserves to be indexed in Wikipedia. The entry he wrote about himself is good (although additional -independent, reliable, and verifiable- sources would be welcome). The main (the only) problem is that he is the author of the entry about himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_isn%27t_necessarily_a_good_thing). That said, I don’t think that the entry he wrote is autobiographical and I don’t think that a Wikipedia entry will help him promote his forthcoming book. Since he is the author of the entry about himself, the said entry shall be removed per Wikipedia’s standing guidelines and policies. However, after publication of his biography and after publication of articles about him and his book in reputable news outlets, I am sure other users (not John Ratcliff himself) will create a new Wikipedia entry that will be even more detailed and informative. Shams lnm (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not well aligned with our long-standing policies and practices. A person who explicitly and repeatedly makes threats to sue other editors because of their editorial decisions on an online encyclopedia is not acting in good faith, they are attempting to bully other contributors into yielding to their own will. Whether one is new to the site or not, one ought to know not to do act like that, and a half-hearted apology ('I'm sorry if my words made you feel harassed' does not do the same heavy lifting as 'I'm sorry for harassing you, and I withdraw my threat to sue you') is not sufficient. Girth Summit (blether) 14:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Helluva Boss episodes AfD closure never implemented[edit]

    Back in July of last year, I nominated four articles for deletion. They were supposed to merge elsewhere, but an IP sneakily removed the merge notices from all four pages, and nobody seems to have noticed it. The first two pages to have their merge templates removed were October 19 and 20, copying the same edit summary in Special:Diff/1180623984. The other two had the merge templates removed on November 6, without an edit summary. I stumbled on to them this evening and thought, "wait what? Why are these articles here again? Did someone rewrite them?" No, and they hadn't been edited much since the closure (see diffs: Murder Family, Loo Loo Land, The Circus (Helluva Boss), Pilot (Helluva Boss)). As far as I can tell, only one citation—a tweet from the official Twitter account—has been added to these four pages.

    Is the merge stale now because it's been so long? The IPs used to remove the templates have been blocked. SWinxy (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked at WP:MERGE and it mentions nothing about if the merge notices are removed. But as long as there is a consensus to merge (which appears to exist), I think the merge is still valid. Just place the relevant template on the articles and you should be fine. (Non-administrator comment) MiasmaEternal☎ 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just revert the IP. TarnishedPathtalk 08:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Erroneous page archiving by ClueBot III[edit]

    ClueBot III (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) seems to be occasionally archiving pages incorrectly to Archives/_1 and ignoring the configuration on the page. Examples from various namespaces: 1, 2, 3, 4. This was reported on the ClueBot Commons talk page yesterday by @MrPersonHumanGuy: ping. Other examples can be found in the contributions log. Local Variable (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a matter for this noticeboard; try WP:VPT. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. Local Variable (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1221208597"