Jump to content

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

    EnglishDude98 topic ban

    [edit]
    EnglishDude98 INDEFfed by Barkeep and warned against further logged out editing (by me) as the block applies to the editor not the account. Star Mississippi 21:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    EnglishDude98 (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings from a few users regarding their conduct, including numerous messages from me regarding creating mainspace articles even though draft articles (in either draft or user space) already exist.

    A few days ago they said they would stop doing this - today they have created Dylan Mitchell, even though Draft:Dylan Mitchell already exists. This is their second attempt at creating the article.

    As a side note, lots of their articles appear to fail GNG.

    Given they will continue to create duplicate and non-notable articles, I suggest a topic ban from article creation, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 20:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into their contribs a bit deeper while I have time, Joel McGregor is a duplicate of the topic recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel McGregor. GiantSnowman 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support - Unless there are enough sources available, they should not create an article. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. I think that yes, EnglishDude98 needs to stop making "duplicate" and non-notable articles. However, I'm not sure that the articles they are making are always clear cut CSD or PROD-able, some of them should go through AfD, as it's not black or white. I think they have potential to make valuable articles in the future. They have created some articles that are actually not that bad (see here). They just need to learn first what constitutes notability.
      If EnglishDude98 continues their disruptive habits from this point forward, ping me again and I will reconsider my position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, to be fair, the recently created Connor McAvoy (footballer, born 2002) appears good. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Although @Paul Vaurie:, they are still trying to get non-notable articles into mainsapce generally, see Draft:Jack Henry-Francis which has rightfully been declined.
      Putting the draft duplication issues to side for a moment, EnglishDude98 shows a fundamental lack of understanding about notability, which combined with a clear ongoing desire to create articles, is disruptive. GiantSnowman 07:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite numerous editors sending his articles to AFD - his talk page is now riddled with the notifications - EnglishDude98 (who I note has not commented here) continues to create impressive looking but ultimately non-notable articles. He is a time sink. He needs to be topic banned. GiantSnowman 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. This editor either doesn't understand or doesn't care about GNG and their failure to search for existing drafts is troubling too. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be related to/working with User:Das osmnezz? Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely, I think. GiantSnowman 17:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another non-notable recent creation, Mayowa Animasahun, has just been draftified by another user. Can we get the topic ban in place please? GiantSnowman 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pretty unbelievable that nothing has been done despite this editor's absolute refusal to listen. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree, incredibly frustrating. GiantSnowman 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially as non-notable articles are still being created... Andrew Wogan the latest example, which I will be sending to AFD in due course. GiantSnowman 20:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seriously learnt my lesson after the last few days in terms of creating non-notable articles. I won't bother making any more NON NOTABLE pages in that case; I will edit on pages which are notable. User:EnglishDude98
    • Oppose TB hopefully, the recent block experience will focus their minds on what is expected in article creation (and also, vis à vis, not wasting several editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc). SerialNumber54129 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as EnglishDude stops creating articles and drafts, I see no problem. GiantSnowman 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Remove unsourced content added by disruptive, bad faith, and biased editor Spworld2

    [edit]
    Uninvolved editors feel this is a content dispute full of assumptions of bad faith by Neutralhappy. The claim of a COI isn't well supported and looks more like a topic of interest for Spworld2. The content dispute should be settled in the existing forums already in use.--v/r - TP 14:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It seems User:Spworld2 is incorregible. Because of too much influence of a COI (WP:COI), Spworld2 would be ready to get even an indefinite block. This is because EK Samastha and its followers are strong in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference (as per a source) or the inauguration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation" as per the EK Samastha's website; after the promulgation conference by the faction of AP Samastha in Kasaragod. Spworld2 apparently and certainly belongs to a particular type of supporters of EK Samastha who are not ready to edit neutrally or edit as per the source. So an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and related topics, such as its subsidiaries, would be needed. I at least seek the intervention of admins to remove the unsourced content, especially the unsourced content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). See also several disruptive and unhelpful edits by Spworld2 Neutralhappy (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spworld2 has been informed about this ongoing discussion on their talk page. Neutralhappy (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutralhappy, you need to provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs. You have not yet done so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, any editor can provide sources or tag with "citation needed" or if all else fails, remove implausible or false unsourced content. That does not require administrator's tools. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs seem to be presented in this version of the filer's sandbox (linked in mobile view in the last sentence), with this post serving as a summary. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I have provided convincing evidence in the form of diffs. Spworld2 would definitely need an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and the related topics, such as their subsidiaries. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remedies
    • 1) Remove all mentions of the term "(AP Sunnis)" in bold in the article, except in the title, since it is not part of the name of the organisation of AP Sunnis.
    • 2) Remove the statement that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)", because it is unsourced. Instead, say it is known as "Samastha" since the sources say so (1, 2, 3, 4).
    • 3) How should we treat the time of formation, the founder, and the history until the so-called split of Samastha in 1989? Based on the source or by arbitrarily considering one of them or both of them as new organisations? Please help decide it.
      • I suggest the removal of the unsourced statements (including in the infobox) that the AP Samastha was founded in 1989 and that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar.
    • 4) Remove the mention that Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar ever became the president of any Samastha, since no source supports it.
    • 5) Remove the mention that headquarters of AP Samastha is Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya, for two reasons: it is unsourced and it appears dubious since a post of a Facebook page, supporting the AP faction, says "Samastha Centre, Kozhikode-6" below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama".
    If I remove the unsourced content, Spworld2 will add it again. So someone else need to intervene. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition of unsourced content by Spworld2
    • Spworld2 also added unsourced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in the infobox that the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is in 1989 and its founder is Kanthapuram. The sources cited by Spworld2 to add 1989 as the year of formation or Kanthapuram as the founder in the infobox do not support the addition by Spworld2. These two (1, 2) are the sources Spworld2 used to add 1989 as the year of formation and Kanthapuram as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), in the infobox. These two do not support Spworld2's claim. On the other hand, Spworld2 wants to add 1926 as the year of formation and Varakkal Mullakoya Thangal as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) in the infobox of the article for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction).
    • Spworld2 again wrongfully changed the year of formation of AP Samastha without citing a source. The source given does not even mention "1986".
    • Spworld2 wants to advance the position that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, without citing a source.
    • Spworld2 added the headquarters of AP Samastha as Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya without citing a source, though this appears to be wrong since the place shown below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama" in a post of a Facebook page supporting the AP faction is "Samastha Center, Kozhikode-6".
    • Spworld2 says Kanthapuram is the founding president of AP Samastha, which must be false, not only because there could not be a single source stating Kanthapuram ever was a president of any Samastha, either before the so-called split in Samastha in 1989 or after it; but also because at the time of the reorganisation of Samastha in 1989, Kanthapuram was made the general secretary and Ullal Thangal the president.
    Removal of sourced content by Spworld2
    • Spworld2 also removed content to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha by removing the sourced content.
    • See also this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
    • See this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
    • Spworld2 removed the sourced content about the flag of Samastha, probably to suppress the AP faction version of the narrative about the flag.
    • Spworld2 removed "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha being referred to as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", though the sources given against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama". See what the sources say also. Instead, Spworld2 replaced the term "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" with "All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama", another organisation of AP Sunnis.
    • Soworld2 removed the sourced content, giving a false edit summary.
    Unhelpful editing by Spworld2
    • Both Samasthas are known as Samastha. But Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit, by changing also known as Samastha to also known as Samastha (AP Faction) even though there are numerous sources to support it and 5 sources are present in the article to support it. Note there is not a single source that says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)" or "Samastha (AP faction)". Spworld2 apparently and probably made this edit to get a positive result to the Spworld2's move request and thus get the page moved to "Samastha (AP Faction)".
    • Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit by changing "Flag of EK Samastha" to "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama flag". In fact, it is the flag of EK Samastha only. This edit by Spworld2 would mislead readers that there is no difference of opinion regarding the flag used by both Samasthas. In fact, AP Samastha uses a different flag. This is especially problematic since both flags appear to be the same, though there are minor differences.
    • Spworld2 removed "of EK Sunnis", which distinguishes the organisation, by this edit. In addition, Spworld2 removed the part that clarifies the misunderstanding that there are two Samasthas in the same edit.
    Spworld2's character of not maintaining neutrality
    Unwanted placement of clarfy tag by Spworld2
    • Though there is nothing unclear Spworld2 placed the clarify tags (1, 2), without giving a reason. Later, Spworld2 removed the content altogether just because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha and its success.
    Repeated addition of EK Samastha's only position without citing source to support it, by Spworld2
    Disruptive edits by Spworld2 even after getting warning
    • Spworld2 added an unsourced content, even after getting a warning (see: 1, 2). The source says about the split of Samastha in 1989, not the formation of AP Samastha. Nor does the source say Kanthapuram is the founder of AP Samastha.
    Links of previous discussions
    Neutralhappy (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see nothing here that belongs at WP:ANI. This discussion only seems to add one venue to the already too long list of venues where the content issue is being discussed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather disagree with you since this WP:ANI is meant to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems, as this venue itself says:

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

    I came here not mainly to discuss but to get an action taken against the bad faith, disruptive, and biased editor Spworld2, or mainly to get the unsourced content removed. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased". If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss. All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, thanks for your reply. Have you found out that America is known as USA? If yes, should we avoid saying America is known as USA in the Wikipedia article on America, because some people hate to refer to America as USA? What is your answer? Whether it is yes or no, the same applies to both Samasthas, since both of them are known as "Samastha". Spworld2 hates to refer to AP Samastha as a Samastha, so Spworld2 replaced "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (AP Faction)",—which is similar to saying Taiwan is "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)",—without citing any source though the given sources against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha". If it is not a problem, the same should apply to EK Samastha, where Spworld2 had not applied the same, by replacing the term "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (EK faction)", because Spworld2 wants to project only EK Samastha is known as Samastha, obviously to advance the view of the EK faction (people affiliated with EK Samastha) that the only EK Samastha is the real continuation of the Samastha founded in 1926. If it is not a problem add "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction), by replacing the "[name of founder of Taiwan]" with the founder's name in the article Taiwan. Likewise, add similar terms coined by Wikipedia editors in several other articles. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spworld2 removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha" because Spworld2 wants only EK Samastha referred to as "Samastha" without qualification. Which Wikipedia guideline suggests mentioning alternative names of a subject without boldening it. Therefore, it is not only an act of disruptive editing but vandalism also. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit by Spworld2 changed "also known as Samastha" to "also known as Samastha (AP Faction)", the change this move request is seeking for, without any supporting citations, though the use of "Samastha" to refer to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was supported by 5 sources at the time of this change. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Phil Bridger's comment, each sentence (specially shown) is rebutted as follows:

    This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased".

    I do not contest this, nor do I need to.

    If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss.

    A discussion can take place even if all sides has already taken opposing positions. Furthermore, this venue is to report "chronic intractable behavioural problems", which has to be ascertained before reporting on this venue.

    All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites.

    All you have found may be the whole universe, but they may not be relevant here. Here, we need evidence such as, sources, and diffs. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neutralhappy: Have you attempted to resolve this issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? If not, I think that would be a logical next step for you and Spworld2 to resolve these disagreements. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was busy and didn't see the discussion. There was no World War here to mention so much Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section Spworld2 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Spworld2 is saying, "Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section" about the edits Spworld2 made on AP Samastha and EK Samastha, it is false, since they were neither misquoted nor unrelated. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact
    Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Sunni Islamic organization established in 1926 in Kerala, India.
    This makes it the largest legally functioning Sunni Islamic organization in India.
    In 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase), due to a slight difference of opinion from this organization, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, he resigned (separated) from this organization and went and formed a new organization. It is known as AP Samastha, AP Sunni, Samastha (AP Faction) and Kanthapuram Faction[1][2][3] [4].
    Established in 1926, the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama organization is still functioning in India.
    But this editor (@Neutralhappy) has the information and history of the organization founded in 1926 in the same way Wrote in the new organization adding unsourced information along with it.
    This editor focuses only on this page and spends a lot of time on this, and it is discussed in many places to keep it alive. Writing in promotional style. It feels WP:COI Spworld2 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are telling a lie that Kanthapuram resigned from Samastha. Moreover, the matter that the Kanthapuram faction created a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 is a POV pushing. In addition, AP Samastha has the same name, registration number, and flag Samastha had before the so-called split in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AP Samastha was formed between 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase)
    When a new organization is formed it will have a year, it will have a cause/reason, it will have a founder,
    the same description and the same year of formation should not be written the same in two articles.
    In the absence of the above facts it is against policy to create the article as a new organization.
    According to your arguments
    If these two are same ??
    Merge into Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (existing organization) article Spworld2 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problems with sources cited by Spworld2
    The following are the sources cited by Spworld2 here to say the AP faction formed a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The first and the second sources do not say it at all, while the third and the fourth ones are the same source that says the AP faction created a new organisation after a split in Samastha. This is the fist time Spworld2 cited a source before me to claim the AP Samastha has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. See what is the problem with them:
    This does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.
    This also does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.
    This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha.
    This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest editing by Spworld2
    * Spworld2 wanted to get the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis) deleted, which at the time was Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), probably because Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of people associated with EK Samastha that EK Samastha is the only and real Samastha.
    * To advance the view of people of EK Samastha in wkivoice, Spworld2 removed a move request to rename and move Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis) to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) respectively.
    * Spworld2, being failed to get the page for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) deleted, began the attempt to move and rename the page as Samastha (AP Faction), probably because Spworld2 wanted to remove the full name of the organisation, which is often quoted by reliable sources, so that readers would think the only organisation with the full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is that of EK Sunnis. Earlier, Spworld2 tried to remove "Samastha" from the full name (1, 2, 3) so that readers would think Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is not officially known by its full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", or as just "Samastha".
    * See also this removal, which was undone by an admin.
    Pages created by Spworld2
    * The pages created by Spworld2 show Spworld2 is closely associated with Indian Union Muslim League and EK Sunnis (people affiliated to EK Samastha), which the overwhelming majority of followers of EK Samastha support. Spworld2 created the article 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala for the promotion of the future event and EK Samastha's claim of the legacy of Samastha founded in 1926. Spworld2 also removed the notability tag added by someone else from the article 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala. Furthermore, Spworld2 created the article Majlis Al-Noor, which is about a program of EK Sunnis (people affiliated to EK Samastha). Interestingly, Spworld2 appears to have a close connection (maybe as a leader such as a local leader of any subsidiaries of EK Samastha) to the subject because Spworld2 has uploaded an image used in Majlis Al-Noor, which might only be uploaded by those who are close to the subject because of copyright. The flag of Haritha (organisation), which is associated with Indian Union Muslim League, has also been uploaded by Spworld2; that in turn shows Spworld2's closeness to the group or the faction, such as being a leader of this political party or being close to the leader of a subsidiary of EK Samastha. See Spworld2's complete list of uploads; which in turn shows probably Spworld2 has been to or lives near Puthanathani, a place in Malappuram district, in the two constituencies of which the Indian Muslim League fielded its candidates for the 2024 Lok Sabha election. Likewise, Spworld2 created articles on places and institutions in Malappuram district. The edit by Spworld2 shows, Spworld2 knows Malayalam, though the source does not support Spworld2's claims in the edit. Spworld2 edits are largely on articles related to Kerala politics or politics in which Indian Union Muslim League has an interest. The other articles Spworld2 created are related to GCC, where a large number of Malayalees work. So it is certain that Spworld2 has a close connection to at least the leaders such as the local leaders of the subsidiaries of EK Samastha. The following is a list of the articles Spworld2 created as of 13:34, 6 September 2024; and those that have association with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) are shown in bold, and those with EK Sunnis or EK Samastha with an underline:
    We can see the articles edited by Spworld2 here. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This source says most of those affiliated with EK Samastha are members of the IUML: "It is a known fact that most of the Samastha workers are members of the IUML and the party is confident that the issues with Samastha may not have any political fallouts." Neutralhappy (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? S !! All this is created by me, what is the problem??
    Write more articles on the subject of knowledge, and create related articles when writing an article. What's the problem with that? There is no interest in a war over an article, I don't like arguing a point and writing a lot of essays about it
    Keep it simple Spworld2 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paid editing behaviour by Spworld2
    Earlier, Spworld2 tried to get the article on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) disappeared from Wikipedia. Now also, Spworld2 wants to get that aim fulfilled by proposing the merger, in a comment, (earlier also, Spworld2 had suggested the same merger, in a comment), of the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) with Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction). This seem like the typical behaviour of a paid editor having made an agreement to get the article on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) disappeared, through the process such as deletion or merger, in whatever way possible, even at the risk of being banned or blocked, indefinitely. Alternatively, Spworld2 themself seems to be more interested to further the EK faction's view than being needed to be paid, just like those affiliated with EK Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't write for anyone's money, I write in my free time
    All this is just your wrong feeling, Just your fake propaganda Otherwise only slander ,
    The anger at what the COI told you is telling back to me
    I know about the organizations in Kerala, I know about the political parties, I know about AP Samastha, of which you are the editor . Writing articles under the Kerala Wiki project.
    When an article is written, its corresponding article is written, all according to policy Spworld2 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lying by Spworld2 besides typical paid editing behaviour
    See the nomination of AP Samastha, which at the time was Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), for deletion by Spworld2. Now, Sporld2 apparentlylies that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) does not exist, by labelling Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) as the "existing organization". Neutralhappy (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies and deception by Spworld2 to continue disruptive, bad faith, biased POV pushing
    Spworld2, at 8:46 16 September 2024, (see also: 1, 2—in which User:Spworld2 is seen, 3—how it appears in Spworld2's user page), has admitted that Spworld2 is a supporter of the Indian Union Muslim League and that Spworld2 has Malayalam as the native language. The EK Sunni supporters of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) would likely have more hatred towards the AP faction than the EK Sunnis who do not support the Indian Union Muslim League, since several leaders of the IUML are Mujahids. The biggest enemies of non-Sunnis, in Kerala, including Mujahids, in Kerala, is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, general secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and the AP faction Sunnis. But, just within 5 hours after the admission, Spworld2 lies that Spworld2 is not affiliated with any organisation. It is obvious Spworld2 is blatantly lying, like Spworld2's other lies, such as those seen in Spworld2's edit summaries in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), allegations against me, Neutalhappy, and the addition of the false, unsourced content. Spworld2 also lies that Spworld2 knows about Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), because Spworld2 does not appear to know the headquarters of AP Samastha, and whether ever Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar became the president or the founding president of any Samastha. Spworld2 also lies that AP Samastha is known by the term, coined by Spworld2, "Samastha (AP Faction)". Actually, either Samastha is known as "Samastha", which Spworld2 replaced with "Samastha (AP Faction)", though there were 5 sources supporting the fact that AP Samastha is known as "Samastha". Spworld2 engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism—(1: grammatical and spelling mistakes, 2: removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha", violating the Wikipedia guideline to bolden it, because Spworld2 hates EK Samastha to be referred to as "EK Samastha"; in other places Spworld2 removed terms indicating the EK faction, such as "EK faction" altogether),— and bad faith editing (unhelpful editing) on the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Spworld2 also lies that Spworld2 is not interested in edit warring. But, had Spworld2 not interested in edit warring, I would not have reported about Spworld2 on WP:ANI, but just would have undone Spworld2's problematic edits. The edit history of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) proves the edit war conducted by Spworld2. So, kindly TOPIC BAN Spworld2 on both Samasthas and the related articles, since it is unavoidable. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See this. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    By my count, Neutralhappy has contributed over 39,000 bytes to this report. That is very much WP:TLDR. Diffs are important, but everyone here is a volunteer, and most have better things to do than wade through ~40k buytes of forum shopping, as this issue was already brought up by Spworld2 on WP:NPOVN.

    From a glance, this seems to mostly be a content dispute, sprikled with assumptions of bad faith by Neutralhappy, including in the very title of this section. Neutralhappy, if you want people to read your report, I recommend starting a new subsection, and presenting briefly the most important parts of your case, including at least 3 but not more than 10 diffs showing the most egregious problems. If it's over 1,000 words, it's likely too long. Be sure to cite the policies each diff violates. Or, better yet, try the steps in WP:DR, including WP:3O to get uninvolved editors to weigh in and solve the content dispute. If Spworld2 edit wars against two editors, that's a very easy block, and requires very little documentation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutralhappy, there is no nice way to say this. You have obviously gone through a lot of work pulling this complaint together. But for any sanctions to result from an ANI complaint, the misconduct either a) must be blatantly obvious to any editor or b) have a reasonable amount of compelling evidence presented that a large assortment of uninvolved editors can easily assess and come to conclusions about.
    By "reasonable", I'm thinking of 3-10 diffs of bad behavior, not a very long, multi-sectioned narrative. You are not going to find many uninvolved editors (well, except for EducatedRedneck) who are willing to put in the time and effort to assess your complaint here and this is likely to be archived without action being taken. Editors are busy, they don't have the time to devote to all of this when they have other editing activities to do. As I advised another editor (below), cases this complex should be brought to ARBCOM if that is a suitable forum. ANI is just not set up for evaluating this large amount of content and could end up with a BOOMERANG on you. Take this as a lesson learned for the next dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through Spworld2's contributions, it seems the user is treating Wikipedia as a gossip column of a tabloid by adding sensational content such as run-of-the-mill issues/verbal spats/allegations under the heading "controversies", disregarding WP:CSECTION and it's long-term notability. Some of the articles created are also sensational in nature. 117.230.80.72 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Admins please note: this is the first edit from this IP ( 117.230.80.72) , the only IP not active in this discussion, first edit participating in this discussion
      Comment is like an experienced user Spworld2 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two editors unable to participate collaboratively

    [edit]
    Keystone18 has not edited for a week, and this thread has ceased to progress in a meaningful manner with no consensus developing that either Keystone or EEng's behavior needed addressing at ANI. All editors should, as a matter of helpful and collegial editing make best efforts to use edit summaries and other tools to accurately describe their edits, but they are not required. Thebiguglyalien, if you believe there is still an open issue I'd recommend a more concise report with fewer sections and proposed actions. Star Mississippi 21:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keystone18 recently left a message on the talk page of EEng offering suggestions at User talk:EEng#Suggestions about your editing. These suggestions were polite, left in good faith, and by and large were good advice.

    EEng responded. Highlights include:

    • Ironic, isn't it, that they made that mess just 30 minutes before coming here to lecture me.
    • No, that's just a delusion you have.
    • Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    • Yet in article after article you have mindlessly shoved all images to the right, and made them all the default size, turning them into a monotonous stack in which most images are far from their relevant text
    • Again, you don't know what you're talking about
    • This is the root of your problem. The idea that all pages must look the same is popular among editors who have no judgment of their own and find comfort in running around imposing their hallucinatory formatting and copywriting "rules" on articles about whose histories they know nothing, and about whose subjects they know nothing.
    • Honestly, how can you possibly think that's OK? Because anything outside your tiny radius of experience is foreign matter that must be expelled? Shoot first, ask questions later? This truly epitomizes your bull-in-a-china-shop editing.
    • You're a one-editor wrecking crew.
    • Don't make me laugh.
    • You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when you're really an inexperienced, overconfident, careless editor who needs to slow their roll.

    There were legitimate concerns about Keystone18's editing, particularly regarding the introduction of errors, lack of edit summaries, and misuse of minor edits. Understandably, Keystone18 did not respond to EEng's inappropriate comments. All of the comments above were merely in response to the advice; Keystone18 had done nothing to escalate the situation.

    Even though Yngvadottir came in with a more reasonable tone, EEng escalated it even further when Keystone18 did not respond:

    • First look at the ridiculous effect of putting all images to the right and making them all the same size
    • but Keystone's too busy to actually look at what they do before rushing off to turn some other article into shit.
    • A few random examples of other destruction they've wrought on various articles
    • As you mentioned, even given their abysmal track record I have, until now, gone through every one of their edits looking for any nugget of a useful change amid all the fecal matter.
    • Complete incompetence.
    • Those friends are close to as incompetent as Keystone is. They've done similar things in other articles -- don't know what words mean, reverse the sense of the text, screw up the formatting, project their naive ideas into articles. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Completely understandably, Keystone18 did not respond. Unsatisfied, EEng left a retaliatory warning on Keystone18's talk page at Special:Diff/1245755384. I believe that both editors are in the right here in that the other needs to correct their behavior. Both editors have had many chances over many years to do so. To avoid a pointless back and forth, I'm going to skip straight to proposing remedies so we can be done with this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The bile in EEng's response was unnecessary, but I don't agree that the original post was particularly worthwhile or constructive. I don't doubt it was in good faith, but its tone was frankly obnoxious at points: hat led you to think that was warranted? [...] Unless I am missing something, don't use it, and try to remove it from the edits you have already made isn't rhetorically negated just because they were indeed missing something that they could've made some effort to figure out first. It is not your role to add your commentary on the subject in edit notes, or even to issue emphatic edit notes saying what should or should not be done with edits. The site is guided by guidelines that make that unnecessary; similarly reads as both presumptive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. I don't think editors are beyond question for their experience or whatever, but some basic self-awareness about things other editors may or may not be privy to is also a factor for civility and constructive collaboration. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keystone18 warned to preview edits

    [edit]
    No consensus for this particular warning. SerialNumber54129 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keystone18 is warned that they must preview edits before publishing them and to correct any errors they introduce into an article.

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

    Keystone18 subject to edit summary restrictions

    [edit]
    Closing ahead of larger close. There is no consensus for the sanctions proposed here. Star Mississippi 21:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keystone18 is indefinitely subject to a requirement that they use edit summaries in all of their edits. These edit summaries must be sufficient to explain the reason for the edit or the changes made. Keystone18 may not mark any edit as minor. Repeated use of the minor edit function or failure to use an edit summary may be sanctioned with a block until Keystone18 agrees to comply with the restriction. The edit summary and minor edit restrictions can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

    • Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have been frequently frustrated by Keystone18's rapid-fire edits without edit summaries. Requiring edit summaries will not only make their edits easier to understand - it will force them to slow down and think about the edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - we have a template for this as well, Template:Uw-editsummary2. And edit summaries are not required anyway, but they are best practice. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I know it's an usual step to take, but this is an unusual case. Keystone has made over 100,000 edits in the past 2.5 years: 45k in 2022, 39k in 2023, over 31k so far this year [5]. Only half of those edits have edit summaries--that's 55k+ edits with no summaries [6]. They are going too fast and making too many edits, and the lack of edit summaries is likely because edit summaries would slow them down. They made 1,620 edits to Allentown, Pennsylvania; 1,342 edits to Lehigh Valley. What possible reason could there be for any editor to make more than a thousand edits to one article? And look at the edits, e.g. to Allentown, PA: [7]. Even when edit summaries are used, they're canned, like "further" and "minor copyediting." This sort of behavior absolutely blows up article histories--and floods watchlists. Requiring descriptive edit summaries would both solve the lack-of-edit-summary problem, and, I think, solve the too-many-edits problem. WP:HIGHSCORE editing is disruptive. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: 930 edits to talk pages. 110,000 edits to mainspace, less than 1,000 to talk space. Kinda tells you all you need to know right there. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I agree with Levivich. C F A 💬 03:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I can appreciate the sentiments motivating this proposal, but this is a very clumsy and impractical way to try to reduce the disruption associated with this editor's approach. Indeed, I'm concerned it would exacerbate issues and become its own time sink, if anything. What happens when Keystone's summaries are inevitably found to be too brief, flippant, or just unclear? We're back here with another couple hundred thousand bytes of text being wasted on a new argument for the next sanction. Beyond that, it's just not practical to create a unique framework of editorial rules for an editor over and above what others are formally required to adhere to. If appropriate, make a proposal to TBAN them from particular areas or processes that they tend to disrupt, or propose a block altogether. These kinds of cobbled-together, hand-holding/guardrail sanctions pretty much never solve anything except to postpone any actual solution the issues. SnowRise let's rap 05:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have turned, and I continue to turn, my face from sanctioning editors for things that are not yet sanctionable. SerialNumber54129 21:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    EEng subject to a civility restriction

    [edit]
    If this is ever going to pass, this isn't the scenario. Let's not spend more time and bytes on this. Star Mississippi 01:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    EEng is subject to an indefinite civility restriction. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

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

    Problems with Keystone18's editing

    [edit]

    Keystone18 (talk · contribs) has been extensively rewriting articles. Partly this is because they evidently have firm preferences as to article layout; see their talk page and the note they dropped on EEng's talk page after, it seems, a series of conflicts on articles on EEng's watchlist. But they have been leaving some of these articles badly broken: for example this version of Memorial Hall (Harvard University) with formatting symbols and part of a caption left hanging in the text, article text incorporated into the quotebox, and a set of 4 images repeated. In good faith, I have tried to come up with an explanation for why an experienced editor—and member of the Guild of Copyeditors—would leave an article in such a degraded state. EEng has mined their edits for improvements that can be reinstated. But they appear oblivious. And their collegiality leaves a lot to be desired. Most of these edits have been marked minor and have no edit summaries, both of which are hallmarks of editors seeking to avoid scrutiny; they have declined to discuss their changes on article talk pages; after starting the section on EEng's talk page, they did not respond to frequent pings as I and EEng discussed their own editing; and when EEng went to their talk page, they deleted the section in favor of discussing on EEng's talk then returned with a response that accused EEng of "shifting blame" and characterized their "suggestions" (their quotation marks) as descriptions of problems that EEng must fix. Having opened themself up to examination of their edits by making unfriendly suggestions about EEng's style, Keystone18 is now refusing to discuss and instead attacking. They've revealed themself to be a problem editor. I don't know whether this is a recent development. I don't know whether they're going through a bad patch, working on a small-screened device, or simply overcome by loathing when they come across articles with a large number of images as well as a quote box. I don't know how many of the problems I found in the wording at History of Harvard University after a flurry of edits by Keystone18 and others, and even after some fixes by EEng, are down to Keystone18 not fully understanding, and how many were someone else's disimprovements. But they've been requiring quite a bit of clean-up after them, only a small portion of which can be attributed to legitimate disagreement over how articles should look on the page. So since we're here, Keystone18's behavior should be examined, including both their article work and their interactional style. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading through many more of Keystone18's edits, beyond the image-layout concerns and the pattern of a large number of small edits per article (with a high error-rate and minimal communication), the main thing I noticed was idiosyncratic views about how places are referred to. For example, changing "[[Brooklyn]], [[New York (state)|New York]]" to "[[Brooklyn]], New York City, U.S." in infoboxes. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Keystone18 is going to leave the "edit summary reminder" option on and will attempt to minimize fast minor edits, I don't think any other action is required at this time. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three hours ago I was in the process of asking Tryptofish to have a quiet word with Keystone to help them see the light. But then thebiguglyalien took it upon himself to stir the shit-pot, and here we are.
      I've had to clean up so many of Keystone's messes that I can't remember them all, but here are talk-page threads I opened on four articles, listing the problems Keystone introduced (some of them, anyway -- no way to find them all since their diffs are often so scattershot you can't tell what they do e.g. [8]):
    Keystone never responded to any of those threads, instead typically returning to whichever article and attempting to edit-war their changes back in -- their signature move being shoving all image to the right and making them all the same size, no matter how bizarre the results (see [13] -- and scroll to the bottom to see how Keystone also somehow managed to paste 1/3 of the article into a footnote, images and all). EEng 04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. This ended up here after I offered several suggestions/questions to EEng a few days ago on some of Eeng's editing trends. Two editors thanked me for my edits while also warning of EEng's aggressive guardianship of these pages. As one editor wrote: "Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one." That was followed by EEng's very volatile responses, which I first saw today. At no point have I refused to collaborate with him on the article. Just the opposite. Collaboration was one of my suggestions in my short post to his page. I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions; his addition of personal commentary on the article's subject, which he adds as edit notes in text, which is confusing and sometimes presents spacing and editing problems; his routine use of the "shy" function to words, which I have not before seen and which makes page editing very difficult and also adds to spacing issues; his placement of images in various sizes all over the page (on the left, in the center, and on the right); my suggestion that he not project ownership (what he calls "guardianship)" over pages; and my suggestion that he work collaboratively with other editors.
    The editing of these articles, including my bracket and other error, was complicated by these unusual formatting tactics, but let me focus on my own takeaways for improvement: 1.) I should use the preview option consistently; I likely would have caught the bracket error if I had; 2.) Cease editing on a small device as I have the past few weeks, which was likely part of the cause of the bracket error; in fact, I discovered another similar bracket error today in the Harvard template box, which I corrected and I believe was of my making recently; and 3.) Use much greater discretion (if used at all) with the minor edit option. Keystone18 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, your explanation is inadequate. I have made about 100,000 smartphone edits without ever blaming a "small device" for my errors, which I do my best to correct promptly. I became a highly active administator on my phone and have written Good articles on my phone. Your editing is being discussed because you offered a harsh assessment of another editor's work and other editors took a look at your own work and discovered major problems. Please offer a more detailed response to the criticisms of your editing and a more robust assurance that the problems will not crop up again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When Keystone posted on my talk page five days ago, that was the first time they had given even the slightest hint of acknowledgment of my existence -- after ignoring for a week (as they continue to ignore) the several article discussion threads I'd opened (linked at the four bullets above) and my dozens of detailed edit summaries (e.g. [14]) explaining why I was forced to revert essentially every edit they'd made to numerous articles. What I'd like you, Cullen328, to get from Keystone is how they justify that behavior, for which editing on a phone is also not an excuse. EEng 05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No excuse for editing errors ever. My primary corrective step is to systematically begin using the preview function; 2. No excuse to mark an edit minor if it isn't, or might even be viewed that way. I am going to use great discretion with it; and 3. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns. Keystone18 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the minor edits, that sounds good. Most people won't complain about a minor edit popping up in their and watchlist, and if they do just link this thread. The "minor" checkbox isn't even available on some interfaces right now.[15] Watch out if you use a lot of scripts because some (like User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js) have a "minor" setting that checks the box when they run. Also, if you want a reminder for edit summaries, you can tick the box at Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) Rjjiii (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. I activated that prompt option, which is a helpful reminder. Keystone18 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keystone18: He is being a "guardian" as he calls it because you have made hundreds or thousands of worthless pointless edits that are constantly filled with errors. (Not on just that page, but all over.) It doesn't have anything to do with the equipment you're using, and it's not a stray bracket here and there. EEng was probably wrong to be as sarcastic and harsh as he was, but behind his nasty tone he absolutely was telling the truth about the constant terrible quality of your editing. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, in your first response above, you wrote: I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions. Hmm? What do you mean? Could you link to a diff where you fix an unattributed quotation in an article that EEng has worked on? And I don't see a single mention of quotes in your post to EEng's talk page. The specifics are about shy and image placement. The only person I currently see on that talk page (EEng's done some archiving there recently) mentioning quotes lacking sources is Jjazz76 back in May, who states that EEng has ridiculed me for asking for sources for quotes. I lack the context for that statement, and I note that the previous August, EEng was referring to someone objecting to there being citations in the introduction at Phineas Gage—which were needed to reference quotations. So that's the opposite way around. Can you fill us in on what you were referring to, since you apparently intended to mention it to EEng but didn't? Yngvadottir (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the "context for that statement" you're looking for is this discussion [16], in which an editor insisted that his original research into Harvard's tax returns overrides multiple reliable sources from which I had directly quoted. That editor made themself look ridiculous all by themselves, no help from me needed.
    If you will allow me, Yngvadottir, to redirect the focus however, I have asked Keystone several times now to explain why they refused to discuss their edits at the talk-page threads I opened on several articles [17][18][19][20]. That's the heart of this whole issue. Keystone's overestimation of their own skill wouldn't matter if they had been willing to discuss and learn, but they're not -- though they do put on a good show of it here at ANI. ("I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns" sounds like AI-generated bullshit, BTW.) So once again, Keystone18: what's your explanation for simply ignoring those discussions for up to ten days, while you kept doing the same mistaken things to those and other articles? EEng 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing complicated, EEng. I was not on from about September 10 until yesterday, and you reverted the edits anyway. If I revisit any of these pages, though, I'll be sure to raise my suggestions with you on the respective article talk page first. Keystone18 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, content/editorial disputes about specific articles should be discussed on the article talkpages. EEng says they opened discussions on the article talkpages which you didn't contribute to. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, either you think we're all dumb, or this is getting to be a WP:CIR case.
    • The four discussions were opened on September 4, 7, 7, and 12. Between September 4 and 9 you made almost 1000 edits, including to some of those four articles [21], but ignored the discussions completely. You also ignored my extensive, careful edit summaries [22] reverting your edits; instead you just went back and started editwarring your changes in again.
    • On September 9 you left your message on my talk page, outlining your ideas about editing and article formatting, which might charitably be labeled idiosyncratic. As soon as Yngvadottir responded to you, that evening, pointing out the many ways you'd been messing up article after article, you suddenly stopped editing.
    Now, once again: explain your complete failure to discuss. EEng 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, EEng, by the time I saw your edit comments on the Widener Library and Memorial Hall (Harvard University) pages, you had already reverted my edits. I also did not respond to the very complimentary comments I received on my page about those very same edits from one of two different editors User talk:Keystone18#Widener Library, who praised my edits. Nor did I sign on for four or so days because, frankly, I wasn't feeling well. And nor did (or do) I really have the inclination to revisit these two pages as an active editor because I sense you do not have much interest in collaborative editing on them. I will, however, be sure to read them.
    If I am wrong about that, however, and you want my response to your page comments, I am very willing to address them. You appear to have systematically reverted editors with similar concerns, however. My focus, here, is in not being defensive, but focusing on constructive steps that I can take that make sense and will likely eliminate errors and improve my contributions, including: 1.) I am going to begin using the preview option routinely; 2.) I am going to minimize greatly or entirely the use of the minor edit function; and 3.) I am going to reach out in the coming weeks to those who commented here. Keystone18 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're either lying or we really are in a WP:Competence is required situation.
    • Here's the history of Widener Library [23].
    • As seen in that history, on September 4 you made a long series of edits that completely screwed up the article. That same day I reverted step by step, with an edit summary at each step explaining why your edits were destructive, and opened a talk page thread further explaining [24].
    • As noted so many times, you just ignored all that. But nonetheless, on September 7 you returned to the article and started trying to editwar your changes in again.
    • Meanwhile, you kept moving on to other articles making the same mistakes, I kept opening talk page threads explaining why what you're doing is destructive, and you kept ignoring it all and wrecking more articles; as with Widener Library, in some cases you returned to the same articles after being reverted, and tried to editwar your changes in again.
    I repeat: you're either lying, or we're in a CIR situation, given that you're unable to recall or reconstruct your own actions sufficiently to answer for them. When that happens with a criminal defendant, they put you in a mental hospital until you regain sufficient competency to stand trial; in your case, the comparable action would be a block until you demonstrate that you can engage in basic ways with other editors, and take responsibility for your actions instead continuing this dazed-and-confused act.
    But I didn't open this thread -- another editor made the decision to waste a huge amount of editor time by opening this thread when the matter was already being addressed with you privately. Right now other editors are deciding your immediate fate (above) but whatever happens this time, the moment you show signs of repeating your destructive behavior I'm going to move to have you blocked. EEng 05:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC). P.S. The praise you received is from editors with error rates similar to yours e.g. [25]. It's like a mutual-support network for mess-makers . I wouldn't crow about it if I were you.[reply]
    Keystone18 appears to have been led astray by their friends. What I'm seeing is a failure to pay attention to objections to their edits (including failure to read the edit summaries on reverts, failure to discuss after being reverted, and simply ignoring pings; instead they edit war by simply reinstating their changes). In addition to a failure to be responsible for their own work: we all forget to preview occasionally, but leaving article after article broken is sloppiness that outweighs any improvements within the edits. Edit summaries are not mandatory, but they are expected, and communication is required. I looked for previous mentions of the lack of edit summaries on their talk page, and found only one (October 2, 2022). I found numerous editors querying their over-use of the "minor" flag, some of them templated, others not (February 19, 2022; May 11, 2022; October 12, 2022 and January 2, 2023). I was not impressed by their responses on either issue; they seemed to me to quibble over definitions rather than understanding that their usage was anomalous and not very collegial. For someone with such a pattern of unresponsiveness to go to another editor's talk page and "suggest" they edit collaboratively is galling. I'm sorry you have been ill, Keystone18, and I hope you are now feeling much better. But I for one don't want you to "reach out" to me personally. The community expects editors to be responsive and collegial and to consider the possibility they are wrong, or out of step with community norms. In addition to expecting editors to take reasonable care they are not leaving an article a mess.
    Also, while I appreciate EEng's desire for focus, I believe you owe him an apology not only for misrepresenting the timeline of your edits, but also for the serious accusation you threw in when you finally responded, here on a noticeboard, that he habitually includes unattributed quotations. In addition to the untruth about your having raised this with EEng in your post on his talk page, you have failed to offer any support for that statement. So far as I can see there is none. The only source for it that I have been able to discern is your friend's statement on your talk page that EEng demands sources for quotes. Is it possible that you jumped to an insulting conclusion about EEng's editing from a misinterpretation of your friend's statement? Or have I missed where you got that from; perhaps it wasn't on-wiki? In any case, it's quite an insult to EEng's editing, and I'm calling you on it.
    For anyone who wonders why I haven't opined in the sections above: Voting on remedies prior to exploration of the problem is putting the cart before the horse. I'd like to keep the emphasis on what's expected of editors, in hopes of Keystone18 understanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, Yngvadottir... every time you ask Keystone18 to account for themselves, their WP:ANIFLU flares up. EEng 13:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, you seem to think that by going dark long enough you're going to escape scrutiny for your behavior. Think again. It may well be that this thread ends up closed without action, but as mentioned before, the moment your bad behavior shows any sign of returning you're likely to get blocked. And the threshold for such action will be far lower if you continue thumbing your nose at the community's concerns here in this thread, as you're doing now. EEng 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Subsection on how this thread began

    [edit]

    I don't frequent ANI too much because I'm not here for drama and conflict. I think frankly some editors need to remember what we're here for. This whole thread is largely a waste of time. On the substance, all editors should use edit summaries and avoid multiple small edits in quick succession. I edit exclusively on mobile and that's not an excuse for poor editing. Finally, I've noticed twice recently the editor who began this thread insert themselves into disputes they had no involvement in. Why? AusLondonder (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Time to close

    [edit]

    Well, it's been a week since Keystone last edited, which is unfortunate. But at this point there's no action to be taken -- and I want to remind everyone that it's wasn't I who opened this thread -- so I think it's time for a close. A big shout-out to civility cop thebiguglyalien, whose shit-stirring in opening this thread led to the pile-on which may very well have caused Keystone18 to leave the project forever. Way to go! EEng 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Overzealous blocking by Graham87

    [edit]
    Block has been lifted, admin understands why it was criticized. No further action needed. Star Mississippi 21:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Graham87 (talk · contribs) initially blocked Rager7 (talk · contribs) for Manual of Style violations. Half a year later, he very reluctantly unblocked them. Regarding Rager7's appeal, Graham87 didn't like the whole ... vibe of it. (ellipsis in original). He added: Your main problem was editing sprees on random articles; don't do those this time and things should be all good.

    A few days ago Graham87 blocked Rager7 again, based on "three strikes":

    1. "Strike one" was creating a redirect from Failed Austrian Painter to Adolf Hitler. By all accounts, this was done in good faith. The redirect is currently at RfD and will likely be deleted, but at least one editor (not me) is actually in favour of keeping it, so it's not so obviously and blatantly wrong as to warrant a block.
    2. "Strike two" was Rager7 sending Graham87 a Discord friend request. There is no reason to believe this was not done in good faith, yet Graham87 describes this as technically harassment and considers it a "strike".
    3. "Strike three" was a comment Rager7 left at the RfD, where they said they were testing the waters of which edits makes sense or not. Apparently Graham87 took umbrage at this; he considers it unacceptable for an inexperienced editor to be "testing the waters". Which is ridiculous – how else are they supposed to learn? This was a single redirect that Rager7 created. Hardly disruptive.

    When I inquired about the block at the RfD, Graham87 said It's ... a vibe thing. (ellipsis in original). Apparently he really dislikes Rager7's vibe, but blocking based on vibes is unacceptable.

    All of Rager7's edits outside this redirect seem to be productive and unobjectionable. The "editing sprees" never happened again, as far as I can tell. I therefore consider the block unjustified. I asked Graham87 to unblock Rager7, but he refused. I was going to bring this to Administrative action review, but then I looked into the archives there and noticed a previous discussion where Graham87 had blocked two people including Rager7. There was overwhelming consensus to undo both blocks. Evidently there is a pattern of overzealous blocking, which is why I am bringing this to ANI. Un assiolo (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'd say this summary is generally accurate. It's like ... if that's what they were going to do to "thest the waters" (create a redirect to a highly controversial subject area), I'd prefer not to find out what they'd do next. I'd been checking their edits daily after unblocking them in case of any trouble ( and apart from what's been discussed above, there was this addition of a really bad ref to an already-referenced statement (which I discussed with the user here ... I find that incident kinda weird but could maybe assume good faith about it. If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that. Graham87 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your Strike 3 (uw-vandalism templates tell people to use sandboxes for testing, waters or not, so, by our own admission on a largely used template, they’re messing up) but your Strike 2 feels like you climbed the Reichstag, when you’d only been told not to climb something, but were yet to be given reasons. You know… Oh what’s the words… Jumped the gun! That ain’t much to go off of, for a harassment case. Is there any missing context, to class the friend request on the draconequus’ namealike (This one’s for you, bronies and pegasisters) as harassment?

    If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that. I don’t know about anyone else, but I see this as backed by WP:ROPE. Mentor program, if you really need to supervise. Other than that, they need to be able to be awesome enough, on their own two feet. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't create a redirect in a sandbox. Well, you can, to learn how it works, but the technical aspects of creating a redirect are not the alleged problem, but the appropriateness of this particular redirect. This being a "strike" implies people should not be allowed to make an edit unless they are completely certain that it will be completely uncontroversial. That is not a reasonable standard. Un assiolo (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not stating an opinion about the block itself, but I don't think this is the right forum for the redress of administrative actions. This should be discussed at WP:AN or WP:XRV. TarnishedPathtalk 11:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a brief look at what I've seen so far, I've never heard of the three-strike system being included as part of our policy, and I don't believe that should be enforced (as it feels like a case of WP:NOPUNISH) when a user commits three different mistakes, that in which a user that's been here for over a year can learn from. As Graham unblocked them, I would've assumed that Graham would trust Rager that educating them about why their actions are disruptive rather than blocking would be the better decision going forward. I think Graham should know more about Rager first, and particularly so for any established users, before blocking such users indefinitely, because indefinite is indeed the last straw. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed didn't base the three-strikes concept on any policy. It was more a confluence of bad things. I also think it's worth mentioning that this user used "are" to describe something that happened in 1998, which points to an extreme competence problem. Graham87 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's one example of a mistake that users can learn from. If they used "are" on something done in 1998, that's more likely to be an accident than done on purpose; and you could've just simply reminded them that they should've used "were" instead, along with the past tense. For some users, English isn't their first language, but if they're also ones that are willing to learn from their previous mistakes, sometimes a little reminder is best so that they can be at least assured they won't repeat (or minimise) the same mistakes again. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except they haven't always learnt from their mistakes, like adding a contraction despite being warned against doing so. If English is their second language, they shouldn't really be copyediting or should be extremely cautious when doing so. Graham87 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted why I thought ANI was more appropriate than XRV, namely that they've already been at XRV for the same thing before and I felt that this was a pattern of behaviour which needed to be addressed, not just this individual instance. I admit I don't know whether AN would have been more appropriate. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block - unblock. The reason given for the block, according to the block log is - I think you blew your chance... - not a policy based reason. And highlighting strike two which Graham87 said is "technically harassment, which is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. How on earth is a Discord friend request a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior", and why is this friend request threatening or intimidating to the point Graham87 is frightened or discouraged from editing. Very dubious reasoning for being harassment, in my view. And strike one and strike two are ridiculous as well. This is an overzealous block, and Graham87 should immediately unblock Rager7, and if he doesn't want to, he should step aside, and let another admin handle this. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'll unblock ... and won't take any more unilateral administrative action regarding this user except in highly far-fetched emergency scenarios I need not enumearate where any reasonable admin would block a user, but I do think their editing still needs to be supervised).
      Re: harassment: I recently noticed the message above by Matticusmadness and was about to reply up there but my Internet connection went down, but what I was going to say there fits equally well here: Wikipedia:Harassment § Off-wiki harassment says: "Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment." So that makes what Rager7 did not exactly OK, but it was at least ... odd. The conversation itself, which came after my comment on the "Failed Austrian painter" redirect discussion, was pleasant enough and I just said that I respond to on-wiki things on-wiki. I did think about the possibility of something like this happening when I set up my Discord username. The context in which I use Discord is far removed from the mainstream culture on the platform and I don't use the Wikimedia Discord server (though I was previously barely active on there). Maybe Discord is like email for the yunguns in some ways, but I wouldn't know. Graham87 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait, so they tracked down your Discord UN, and Friend Req’d, even though you’re not in a mutual server, and didn’t really have a good reason to Friend Req you? That’s noticeably more red flag-y, and much more validating of a strike, if I’m reading you right. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is correct, and I still don't consider it block-worthy or harassment. It may be weird from our perspective, but to someone who is not used to communicating on-wiki, but is used to communicating on Discord, this may have seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. WP:AGF. Un assiolo (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A friend request is not a prohibited behavior. I'm not familiar with Discord at all, but isn't there a "accept/deny request" option for a friend request, so in cases where you don't want to be "friends" with someone, you can just deny it. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're citing the list of prohibited behaviors on the community Discord server. Graham, as he has said, is not a member on the server; what he's describing is equivalent to someone randomly sending a Facebook friend request to an admin, which—having had that happen to me twice with people I blocked—I can tell you is a pretty uncomfortable feeling. Per WP:OWH, Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment. I have no opinion as to whether it justified a block, but it's certainly weird and inappropriate and a reasonable thing to bring up as problematic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also their Discord username was different from their username on Wikipedia. When I asked who they were, they said they were Rager7. I guess it's not impossible (but highly unlikely) it was a Joe job. I've had people find me on Facebook before from onwiki blocks, but I've sometimes had productive things come out of that process (like users blocked due to collateral damage from IP range blocks). This is the first time something like this has happened on Discord though. Graham87 (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nail on the head, Taz. You’ve bang on hit why it jumped out at me, from Graham’s explanation.

      Issaidnoway is also correct, but I’m thinking more “how did they find Graham’s Discord”? With this. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 09:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably by seeing what happened when they typed my Wikipedia username in to Discord ... as they're exactly the same (I did say on their talk page that guessing my Discord username isn't rocket science). It's probably better that stuff like that happens to *me* rather than some innocent party who might choose that username in future. If I'd gotten a Discord friend request in a different context I would have reacted differently. Graham87 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      as they're exactly the same Sigh. I really should’ve seen that one coming. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the explanation, but that doesn't answer my question if you can just simply deny the friend request. My assumption is that you can deny it, which would seemingly suggest to the person who made the friend request, you didn't want to interact with them. And then if the person continued to pursue interaction with the other person, after being denied, then in my view, that would definitely constitute harassment. I just don't interpret a single friend request as being harassment. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't know who they were and the easiest way to find out was to accept their friend request and ask them. I was thinking of it as technically harassment in terms of connecting screen names on separate platforms (as in our outing policy, which deals with doing this publicly), but I've found out from the messages above and a close read of our policy that our definition of harassment isn't quite that broad. In retrospect, I should have at the most sent them a warning quoting the "Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited ..." text mentioned twice above here now. Graham87 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clearing that up, I also agree with you about quoting that relevant passage to Rager7 from our policy on harassment would have sufficed, and served as a formal warning not to do that again. Rager7, there has been some excellent advice in this thread concerning your conduct, do you understand not to do that again with a friend request, or contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, is inappropriate? And that you need to be more careful with your editing going forward? Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I understand I need to be more thoughtful when editing and also need to ask permission before friend requesting and/or direct messaging if I were to talk about Wikipedia off-site. Rager7 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To further clarify the Discord messaging, I was trying to resolve the redirect dispute, granted from Graham's end it came off as weird, but that was my goal. The goal being was to settle the redirect dispute, granted it was taken the wrong way hence the re-block. Rager7 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some intense WP:BITE activity here. Not only with misuse of the block button, but in the unbecoming way that Graham is interacting with new editors in general. I'd like to see at a minimum some indication that he is either going to change his approach in handling well-meaning new editors, or that he is not going to interact with them at all. The Discord thing is starting to seem like a red herring. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I would go further to say to Graham that if, in the future, you're choosing whether to block on "vibes", you absolutely do not do so. We don't have a three strikes rule, we don't block based on personal feelings, we don't try and Minority Report-style decide before they've done something wrong they're not here for the right reasons, we block based on actual violation of PAGs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block. I can understand why these things made Graham87 feel leery, but we don't block based on vibes. Going over the three "strikes", while the first one looks like a silly redirect at first glance, reading the MFD discussion makes it clear that there was a reason for it (it's a euphemism used for Hitler on Facebook to avoid automated systems surrounding controversial topics.) That doesn't mean that it was a good redirect, but it was done in good faith and isn't so out-there as to be a conduct issue. The friend request was definitely the most inappropriate thing they did, but it's an easy mistake for someone new to the site to make; many more informal sites out there do use Discord to discuss blocks and bans with moderators. Assuming they immediately dropped it when they realized they'd screwed up I don't think it calls for a block. And the testing the waters of which edits makes sense or not bit, which actually prompted the block, was awkwardly-phrased but clearly isn't saying anything inappropriate. It's expressing trepidation because their earlier experience (which felt WP:BITEy to them) meant they were afraid they would run afoul of some other obscure policy and get blocked... which, to be totally fair, seems like a reasonable way to feel given that they were immediately blocked for that comment. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'll agree to use more solid grounds than "just vibes" to block users in the future. Good to know re the comment about Discord up above. Graham87 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kautilya3, Offwiki canvassing thru emails and social media

    [edit]

    Case

    [edit]

    User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia. This includes chronic off-wiki stealth canvassing to stack votes, elect admins thru offline canvassing so that they help target a group of editors, create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, and such inappropriate practices. This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's chronic behavior and editing particularly relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.

    This case also seeks a review of Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where

    • an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
    • synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
    • where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
    • where an editor celebrates off-wiki violence, disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
    • where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
    • where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and thereby harms en-Wikipedia, harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and harms en-Wikipedia community?

    For Crats and OVERSIGHT team: this is not [WP:OUT]-ing, see this discussion and agreement by Barkeep49 (also this)

    Case evidence:

    1. User:Kautilya3 off-wiki canvassed for RfA votes in favor of Vanamonde93 in order to help elect Vanamonde93 as an admin. Kautilya3's motive was included in that email to me, the very first email I ever received from Kautilya3 through Wikipedia. In that email, Kautilya3 cast aspersions on editors – without evidence – who in good faith opposed Vanamonde93 as admin, and made a bigoted allegation against "oppose" voters. Kautilya3 helped Vanamonde93 get elected as admin thru stealth offline canvassing (I cannot post the original emails of Kautilya3 per WP:ANI guidelines because it contains personal information about Kautilya3 and me, names of other Wikipedia admins and editors he claimed he regularly offline corresponds with; the originals include email address, real names and other information; One original email of Kautilya3 that stealth-canvassed to stack votes in favor of User:Vanamonde93 to elect him as admin has already been forwarded to ARBCOM; An ARBCOM member has acknowledged receiving the email).

    2. Evidence as recent as September 2024 suggests Kautilya3 actively advertises on off-wiki social media that he is a Wikipedian. He posts on social media about topics he actively edits and gate-keeps on Wikipedia (2a, 2b, 2c).

    3. The User:Kautilya3 en-Wikipedia account is the same person as social media account @Kautilya33. This is established by the en-Wiki edits claimed by the social media account and timing of edits. For example, see December 5 2023 edits on social media and en-Wikipedia. (3a, 3b).

    4. In his social media posts, Kautilya3 has encouraged others to hire and pay Wikipedia editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles affecting them. For example, he wrote, "I have mentioned above, an experienced [Wikipedia] editor who offers her services for payment." (4a, 4b)

    5. Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity. His offline canvassing and wiki-editing favors one side. An example of Kautilya3's WP:COI editing is in en-Wiki articles related to the Manipur conflict where violence has led to death and destruction. (5a), 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, etc). Kautilya3's social media where he presents himself as Wikipedia expert extends beyond X/Twitter, includes videos, interviews (however, per WP:OUT, I cannot include those links here as Kautilya3 has not disclosed those on Wikipedia on his own).

    According to an Indian newspaper, 226 human beings have died and 1500 injured as of May 3 2024 (5g). The tragic violence has restarted and is spreading again in September 2024 (5h).

    6. The social media account of Kautilya3, the Wikipedian, advocates, invites and takes one side in his off-wiki posts (6a, 6b).

    Kautilya3 has not only advocated in favor of one side (6d, 6e, 6f, etc), he has cast aspersions and advocated against the other side, including caricaturing the other side as "Meitei fundamentalists" (6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k).

    In one X/Twitter thread, Kautilya3 the Wikipedian wrote his support for violence, "The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (6c).

    This is one example of his personal involvement in this tragic conflict. Such one sided, violence-cheering Wikipedian should not be editing and gatekeeping Wikipedia articles about that very region, topics and the side he advocates (with disinformation as evidenced below).

    7. Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor of the wikipedia article about Kuki people – one of the parties in the tragic violent conflict in Manipur (7a, 7b, 7c).

    Kautilya3 added the following content to wikipedia on Kuki people, "Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India" (7d). This is false. It is not supported by the Michael Lunminthang source cited, or the source Michael Lunminthang himself cites. For those who do not have access to these sources, you can find the relevant section of the sources with context and a discussion here: (7e).

    Neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha sources ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (a term that means "Assam (Kamarupa), Arunachal, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya"). This is disinformation fabricated by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 added content is not only original research, it is false, feeds his social media narrative and incites. He has used his false and fabricated narrative in Wikipedia to further his social media activism with false statements off-wiki. For example, "So, the New Kukis were not new arrivals into Manipur. Rather Manipur was a new arrival into the Kuki land" (7f).

    Kautilya3 has thus leveraged Wikipedia to create and spread the disinformation that northeast India was the historical nation of Kuki-people. He has repeated this misinformation on social media (7l). He thus falsely implies that Kuki-people historically had their own country that today is northeast India, the numerous other tribes and ethnic groups in northeast India are invaders or colonizers or migrants to Kuki country. This is incitement thru Wikipedia and an abuse of Wikipedia.

    This example shows how Kautilya3 has used Wikipedia as a megaphone to spread falsehoods. He advises his followers on social media to "read Wikipedia". (7g, 7h, 7i, 7j, etc). While misrepresenting scholarship and creating misinformation, he claims in his social media post, "On Wikipedia, we use only high-quality sources that know what they are talking about. We [...] provide only a gist of authentic information." (7k). The last part is obviously false as neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (or anything close).

    8. Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him (8a), also see specific Manipur-related, Kuki people-related and Meitei people-related Wikipedia articles (8b).

    Kautilya3 has leveraged Wikipedia to push his socio-political beliefs through social media as evidenced above. He has also leveraged Wikipedia and social media to help craft one-sided narrative and argue his socio-political beliefs: (8c, 8d, 8e, etc).

    9. In past cases, ArbCom has unanimously agreed that "editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia" (9a). Wikipedia ARB committee has unanimously and repeatedly voted that off-wiki stealth canvassing can be disruptive, deserving of sanctions, and issued sanctions (9b, (9c, 9d).

    Given past ArbCom cases and rulings, this case requests a scrutiny of Kautilya3's on-wiki and off-wiki behavior, the conflict of interest issues it raises, and whether Kautilya3 should leverage Wikipedia as a megaphone for his advocacy and political activity by publishing misinformation that he then repeats to his followers on social media. His behavior needs to be scrutinized in light of his off-wiki activity such as encouraging others off-wiki to subscribe to paid en-Wiki editors to spruce up their articles, and his history of off-wiki canvassing to disrupt good practices within Wikipedia such as admin elections etc.

    If after due review of above evidence and cross checks, if Kautilya3 is found to have violated good practices, disrupted and harmed Wikipedia, I request that he be appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. If he is not, one hopes the same standards will be applied to past editors who have been blocked or topic-banned, as well as future editors who do what Kautilya3 has done.

    Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The evidence is compelling against the user Kautilya , wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place where discord is not encouraged, this person seems to be sowing discord going by the activity provided as evidence and by a cursory glance at his regular edits. 2405:201:C000:C8B5:E140:8CE5:C835:4C1E (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by other editors

    [edit]
    • Questions. You wrote: This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's [1] chronic behavior and editing particularly [2] relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.
    There are quite a lot of accusations:
    • User:Kautilya3 has [3] a history of [3a] conflict-of-interest behavior that is [3b] disruptive, that [3c] spreads disinformation, and [3d] harms en-Wikipedia.
    • [4] [a] chronic [b] off-wiki stealth canvassing [c] to stack votes, [d] elect admins thru offline canvassing [d1] so that they [the administrators?] help target a group of editors, [d2] create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, [d3] and such inappropriate practices.
    You also wrote: This case also seeks a review of [5] Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing [5a] coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and [5b] the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where [5] evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where
    • [5c] an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
    • [5d] synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
    • [5e] where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
    • [5f] where an editor [5f1]celebrates off-wiki violence, [5f2] disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
    • [5g] where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
    • [5h] where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources [5h1] to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and [5h2] thereby harms en-Wikipedia, [5h3] harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and [5h4] harms en-Wikipedia community.

    Some comments:

    • Regarding [3]: that alone is a heavy accusation, which indeed begs evidence. Without evidence, this is baseless character-assassination, colouring the impression the rest of your accusatiins make.
    • Regarding [4d]: you are accusing implicitly accuse Vanamonde93 of helping to "target a group of editors," thereby questioning their neutrality and their admin-actions. You also accuse implicitly accuse Vanamonde 93 of helping to "create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles." And you imply that Vanamonde93 engages in other "inappropriate practices." This needs a lot of explanation, and reminds of an off-wiki "dossier" mentioned by a now-blocked editor, in which Vanamonde93 was targetted. So, how about your conflicts of interest?
    • Regarding [4d], bis: you wrote "elect admins" - you imply that Kautilya3 has tried to influence admin-votes repeatedly. You also imply that there are multiple admins with the same problematic behaviour you imply Vanamonde93 exhibits.
    • Regarding [5e]: WP:PAID is not forbidden, as long as it is disclosed. The full at this Twitter-post you linked is:

    Hello Suhagji, you are talking about newbie editors, mostly your members, who come to spruce up your page, without any understanding of how Wikipedia works. They certainly won't succeed. I have mentioned above, an experienced editor who offers her services for payment.

    Which page is this?

    Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joshua Jonathan: Please read the case again. This case is entirely about Kautilya3. Vanamonde93 is only mentioned in part [1], in the context that Kautliya3 stealth canvassing for his election as an admin. Nowhere is this "accusing Vanamonde93 of ...." etc. Please avoid straw man arguments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what you imply: that Kautilya3 wanted Vanamonde93 to be elected as admin, in the expectation that he would take sides. I think you should remove the canvassing-allegations: you have already done an appeal on ARBCOM for that accusation, and we, ordinary editors, can't read, and therefor judge, the contents of those emails. It's confusing to mention that alleged canvassing when we can't judge it, but it does colour the rest of the post. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding (6c), the full text is (emphasis K3):

    Manipur is not burning any more!
    The Valley of Manipur is burning!
    This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices.

    What exactly does this mean? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this context, 'burning' serves as a metaphor for political, social, or ethnic conflict. The 'Valley of Manipur', where the majority Meitei people reside, has experienced significant unrest. The statement reflects Kautilya's disdain toward the Meitei, whom they perceive as responsible for the unrest, and a sense of justice and satisfaction in seeing them suffer. DangalOh (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding [5h]/(7), Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor - when you are the dominant editor, your edits are incorrect? You have given one concrete example of what you think is incorrect, the Taranatha-description of the 'Kuki-country'. Kautilya3 wrote Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India. I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." At best, it could be expanded with "extending it beyond the linguistic group of Kuki-Chin."
    • Regarding (8), you state Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him. That's not concrete.
    • What you basically are saying is that Kautilya3 is not a neutral editor with regard to the Manipur-conflict, but sides with the Kukis, as presumedly evidenced above; that his edits are biased, due to his pov and activism, as exemplified by one edit; and that therefor Kautilya3 should be appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. Alternatively, what I also perceive in your overview, is that you either feel uncomfortable with Wiki-connected activism in general, or specifically, reject the particular pov Kautilya3 is taking. The real question is: are Kautilya3's edits biased? But also: what kind of editors is he up to there, for example at 2023–2024 Manipur violence? Neutral editors, or pov-warriors? And if his edits are biased, should a warning suffice, or should a topic-ban be considered? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Taranatha should not be used unless quoted by reliable secondary sources. For example, Taranatha does mention that Brahmins used a form of "yagna magic" (ritualistic fire sacrifices) to destroy Nalanda. This claim is part of his larger narrative on the conflicts between Brahmins and Buddhists during the decline of Buddhism in India. According to Taranatha, the Brahmins performed a yagna (sacrificial ritual) that involved supernatural elements or "magic" to bring about the complete destruction of Nalanda University. However, I would not trust anything attributed to Taranatha without cross-checking. He might be right, and Brahmins may have supernatural powers, but more evidence would be needed. DangalOh (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether Taranath's views belong to the article and if so, how it is to be framed, is a content-dispute, patently unsuited for ANI intervention. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Joshua Jonathan; MSW's sole evidence of factual inaccuracy ("disinformation", no less!) is weak sauce. The rest of the evidence is indicative of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach.
      For example, what is the issue with 2B and 2C? In 2C (repeated as 3A), K3 adds a citation, tweeted by an academic, to a Wikipedia article for a very non-controversial factoid; what's the link with Manipur? In 4A and 4B, K3 explains our policies on paid-editing to HAF folks and points to one of our better paid-editors — MG operates well within community norms and expectations — in the hope that HAF takes help from someone who has a good grasp of our policies and stop grovelling about "evil Wikipedia"! I see no fault with the engagement. K3 with V93, me, and others, has guarded the HAF page against persistent attempts at whitewashing and MSW's accusation of him suggesting HAF "to spruce up its page" is ridiculuos!
      What action are we supposed to take wrt 5B and 5D? Prevent people from wielding Wikipedia articles to dismiss others' arguments? In 5C, K3 asks tourists to avoid Manipur; so did multiple foreign governments. What are we supposed to do, here? In 5E and 5F, K3 defends Wikipedia and also asserts that all content discussion must be on wikipedia itself than Twitter, which is — ahem — good? Not one of the single X-tweets in MSW's 5X series shows K3 canvassing — if anything, K3 is asking those who challenge the Wiki narrative to come to Wikipedia and discuss content under our policies! It is bluster to connect his wiki-edits with the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded over Manipur (5G and 5H).
      It might be that K3 has a pro-Kuki bias but editors are not expected to be unbiased; unless there is a pattern of K3 abusing sources to push pro-Kuki narrative in our articles, we have nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Kautilya is an experienced and skilled editor, but the question here is whether someone who is so publicly involved in Kuki activism on social media should act as a gatekeeper for Kuki-Meitei-related pages. DangalOh (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you believe K3 "gatekeeps" Kuki-Meitei-related pages, please provide relevant on-wiki evidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have nothing against Kautilya, nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, such as the recent drone-related attack I mentioned on the talk page of 2023–2024 Manipur violence. You can check it out.
      For example, he's using "claimed" for reasons that go against the Kuki community, while removing "claimed" from the reasons involving the Kuki side of the violence. Is this NPOV? There are numerous examples like this. One paragraph simply bashed the Meitei community, portraying them as Hindutva supporters harassing Christian Kukis, completely disregarding the fact that there is a mainstream Meitei group that is not even Hindu but Sanamahist, who hates Hindus even more. Tried various times to show it as a primarly 'anti-christian conflict initiated by BJP' rather than ethnic. I’m glad someone removed it. And these are just the most recent examples—I haven’t monitored the page from the beginning, so there could be much more.
      The issue isn’t about being biased—every human is biased. But being biased in private and in your own mind is different from being openly biased in a public forum. When you are openly and publicly biased, and use the same name on X (formerly Twitter) as you do on Wikipedia, it raises eyebrows. A person who is not only involved in pro-Kuki activism but has also posted inflammatory remarks against the Meitei community on their X account should be scrutinized, especially since they have the most edits on these pages. It does not mater if sources he removed were bad or the sources he used were more reliable. It must be scrutinized. How is this not a red flag? I’m amazed. If it’s okay with everyone, then it’s okay with me.
      The person who raised the complaint might know more details about the diffs. These are just my random observations. I am not motivated to get Kautilya punished in any way. Even if he realizes and acknowledges that there might be some bias, that would be enough for me at least. I don’t know what the person who filed the complaint wants to happen with Kautilya. DangalOh (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, 'observations' without diffs are useless here, in the literal sense of the word, not the rheforical or offensive usage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no substance to this accusation. Editors are allowed to express opinions on twitter; that does not create a COI. Editors are allowed to point to the few legitimate avenues for paid editing. Editors are allowed to correspond with others via email. If K is violating policies with his edits, or has an actual COI, or is engaging in actual canvassing - that is, asking people to take a specific position in a discussion - then evidence of that needs to be presented. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Vanamonde that there is no substance to this complaint. Many of us, including myself, instinctively dislike any encouragement of paid editing, such as Kautilya's encouragement on X of using "agents" to "spruce up" one's BLP on wikipedia, mentioned in Ms Sara Welch's point 4 above. It is, however, allowed, and I definitely find Ms Sara Welch's speculations about wrongdoing in point 5 below to be worse: "Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission?" (I presume "he did" was supposed to be "did he".) Did he ask for commission — really? Seriously, Ms Sara Welch, you should think for longer before you publish insinuations like that at this board. Things like "Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity" (so what?) or "User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia" (evidence-free) I find hard to take seriously. Nor can I see anything wrong with identifying himself as a Wikipedian on social media (Ms Sarah Welch's point 7 below) — what's the matter with that, exactly? Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • @Bishonen: Isn't it odd that when faced with complaint from affected party who claims to be offering WP:RS and asking for a balanced NPOV biography, Kautilya3 – a key editor and gatekeeper of that organization/group biography article – is not linking WP:BLPCOMPLAIN, but suggesting a paid editor? We must assume that a neutral Wikipedia editor would not be influenced by paid or unpaid editors trying to revise an article. What exactly is this Kautilya3-recommended paid editor supposed to do, that Kautilya3 will not do to the article Kautilya3 extensively edits and gatekeeps, given the same sources? On point 7 below, Kautilya3 on social media has called himself "Kuki ka Parivar" (identifying himself to be the "family" – parivar – of one side of the tragic conflict). Per WP:COI, editors are strongly discouraged to edit articles about themselves and family (or close enough to be family-like). The local newspapers, and police case I have read, name him and Wikipedia as party in a legal case. His social media account was blocked in India (and may be, still is; I do not live in India, so I do not know). All this is not any legal threat from me, just a short summary of situation in Manipur and India since you ask for more evidence. I am not linking more because of WP:OUT guidelines. Perhaps Kautilya3 can disclose and provide links so you can see how Kautilya3's Wikipedia-linked social media advocacy has and continues to affect Wikipedia in India, plus the extent of his conflict of interest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Narendra Modi, the incumbent Prime Minister of India, started the trend of having BJP supporters change their social-media handles to "Modi ka parivar" during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections to show their support/allegiance to him. I presume that K3 borrows the language from this stunt but uses it against the narrative propounded by BJP (whom he feels is allied with the Meiteis, opposed to the Kukis). Now, do you suggest that everybody — from among the few million Indians — who had ever used the "Modi ka parivar" tag in their social media handles, has a COI about anything related with Indian politics esp. Modi and his political party? And that K3 has been sued in India, what shall we do? I know of no policy that guides us in dealing with editors who are sued. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't been "sued", at least not yet. The Manipur Police registered a complaint against me made by some one in Imphal. Similar complaints have been registered against Kuki women's leader Mary Grace Zou, Kuki People's Alliance leader William Hangshing, University of Hyderabad professor Kham Khan Suan, JNU professor Thongkholal Haokip, University of Nagaland professor Jankhomang Guite, National Federation of Indian Women which sent a fact finding team, Editors Guild of India for a similar venture and even the central paramilitary force Assam Rifles! Meanwhile, India's press freedom index ranks 161th out of 180 countries. Whenever these indices come out, the Ministry of External Affairs issues a statement claiming that these are motivated, unscientific analyses that are ill-informed. The Prime Minister gives a statement saying India is the "mother of democracy". After a couple of days of drama, it is business as usual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, thanks. I based my comments upon MSW — .. police case I have read, name him [Kautilya3] and Wikipedia as party in a legal case. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Kautilya3

    [edit]

    The allegation is apparently canvassing. WP:CANVASSING 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. In the case of Vanamonde93's RfA, my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages. One of them (MSW) voted in support and the other editor voted to oppose. That doesn't sound much like "canvassing", does it? I am happy to share copies of all the email exchanges on this issue with ARBCOM if necessary.

    Regarding the supposed "canvassing" on Twitter, I was pointing out a permitted avenue for editing Wikipedia, suggesting a paid editor who had already established her credentials here. If people out in the society believe that Wikipedia content is inaccurate or biased or whatever, I would definitely tell them they are wrong, and to challenge them to come and correct it if they think something is wrong. We are an open platform that everybody can edit. Everything is above board. The people complaining are essentially carrying out their own propaganda in the outside world trying to defame Wikipedia, without having the gumption to come and challenge us here. If they can't do it themselves, let them hire somebody who can. We are not afraid.

    Regarding my twitter activity in general, we all know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and twitter is a micro-blogging site. Nobody can confuse one for the other. In an encyclopedia we summarise reliable sources. On a blog site, we write our own views, however well-informed or otherwise they might be. That goes to my freedom of expression, which Wikipedia has no right to curtail. In future, I might become a public intellectual, giving talks, writing articles, or anything else I please. All of those would be conducted in accordance with the policies and principles established for those media, not according to Wikipedia policies. The real world is not an "encyclopedia".

    Having said that, I would like to maintain that all my public-facing activitiy is consistent with what I do on Wikipedia, where I base my views on high-quality sources and evidence, and maintaining "neutrality" as we understand by WP:NPOV. The only difference is that, on Wikipedia, I cannot draw my own conclusions and write my own views, whereas in the outer world, I can.

    WP:NPOV states, inter alia, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. I believe I do that. If people think I don't, they are welcome to challenge me wherever they find such issues. ANI is not the place for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Joshua Jonathan continues his inappropriate straw man arguments. On the disinformation stated in [Case Evidence 7] above, Joshua Jonathan alleges, "I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." He states this without quoting the source, or providing any other evidence. In contrast, in [Case Evidence 7] above, I quoted the source, explained thru links above how this is disinformation, showed with a diff that Kautliya3 added it to Wikipedia, and included evidence that the social media account Kautilya3–the–Wikipedian perpetuated the disinformation in the social media.
    2. For [Case Evidence 8], Joshua Jonathan asks for more concrete evidence. Kautilya3 is the top author–editor of 2023–2024 Manipur Violence article. He is the top author–editor of Kuki people article, and so on. For evidence of gate-keeping, see the edit history of Manipur violence article. Its edit history shows that other than being the top author-editor, Kautilya3 has reverted numerous edits and repeatedly controlled what stays in the article and what does not (J1, J2, J3, etc). Kautliya3 – whose conflict of interest, celebration of violence against one side, and advocacy in social media is presented above in the case evidence – has been authoring and filtering what information stays in that Wikipedia article and what is thereby communicated by Wikipedia to its audience. That is gate-keeping.
    3. Kautilya3, in his statement, inherently accepts that he emailed me (and one more person) for a vote to elect Vanamonde93 as admin. Then he spins and covers up the whole truth. In that email, Kautilya3's intent in asking for the vote is clear. He wanted Vanamonde93 to do something after getting elected (his email says so). He was also troubled by Vanamonde93 getting hammered by oppose votes, and he cast aspersions on the oppose voters without evidence. Those statements show Kautilya's non-neutral intent. Those emails show his disruptive off-wiki activity for years. Obviously, Kautilya3 knew Vanamonde93 well before the latter was nominated for admin election. He was keen on getting him elected by whatever means necessary. Kautilya3 has repeatedly violated WP:CANVASS off-wiki. For what it is worth, I have emails that show that his attempt to help Vanamonde93 fraudulently get elected was not the first and last time Kautilya3 canvassed off-wiki. It would help if Kautilya3 self-disclosed all off-wiki campaigning, vote-stacking and stealth canvassing he has done in the last 8 years, with all Wikipedia-editors.
    4. On Manipur violence and social media advocacy as a Wikipedian, Kautilya3 should also disclose and provide links to all his off-wiki videos, interviews, other social media accounts and off-wiki activity where he identifies or positions himself as Wikipedian. He should also disclose any off-wiki disputes and cases where he has identified himself as a Wikipedian, where his role in Wikipedia has been questioned, cited and has identified Wikipedia along with him as a party in the dispute or case. The community can then weigh if and how much harm Kautilya3 has done to Wikipedia.
    5. Some comments above assert that paid editing of Wikipedia is allowed. True. But there are few other important requirements that apply to paid editing – no misinformation and full clear disclosure are among those requirements. Further, these comments also miss the context. Kautilya3 is one of the two top author-editors and one of the gate-keepers of that article in which Kautilya3 is recommending the affected party to hire paid editor (friend?) to help change an article that he watches, controls and actively edits. Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission? Should he have disclosed Wikipedia's COI, paid editing and other guidelines to the affected party?
    6. Kautilya3 did not show why he grossly misrepresented the Michael Lunminthang source. Kautilya3's response did not offer a defense for the disinformation he fabricated about the "description of Kuki-country", an unsupported lie he repeatedly peddled on social media (see example links in the Case Evidence above).
    7. Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93 above, misunderstand this case. This is a case not about Kautilya3's right to express opinions on X/Twitter, social media, make videos, or exercise his other human rights. The case is about Kautilya's extensive violation of Wikipedia's WP:COI behavioral guideline. I have shown evidence above that Kautilya3 identifies himself as a Wikipedian on social media, he is deeply involved on one side of the Manipur conflict, he actively advocates for that one side, disparages the other side, he has interest and external relationships in the Manipur conflict, he celebrates Manipur violence with "Manipur is not burning any more! The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy" and "Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (for those unaware of Manipur, the side that Kautilya3 disdains and disparages in his social media posts generally live in the valley; while the side he advocates for generally live outside of the valley). Wikipedia guidelines say that editors should not "edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships."
    Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages - while I don't know if it's enough to require sanctions, I definitely disagree that this is sufficient to justify the sorts of emails you sent. Even if you personally consider the editors neutral, that's a subjective judgment that other editors could reasonably dispute - and by notifying them via email, in a non-transparent way, you made it impossible for anyone else to raise that objection. (It was only a coincidence that you happened to send it to someone who raised the issue.) Per WP:INAPPNOTE, secret canvassing is inappropriate for this reason. More generally, I would personally advise against targeted notifications of any sort - no matter how certain you are that they're "neutral", the fact is that when there's a significant dispute, people involved in that dispute are generally going to disagree on what neutrality looks like. Someone can easily end up going "all the other people I'm in a dispute with are biased POV-pushers; I'm going to select a crowd of neutral people to counteract them!" - and it's easy to see how this can cause problems. But all else aside you must do it openly, allowing the people you're in a dispute with to see it and raise any objections - not over email. Your simple assertion that you're only contacting people you consider neutral is not enough. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Aquillion. I agree entirely. Those were still early days for me on Wikipedia. I wouldn't do such a thing today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]
    Ms Sarah Welch, I have read this this entire complaint, though I haven't looked at every diff. And my impression is that this doesn't look like a typical case for ANI but the evidence page for an ARBCOM case. There is just too much going on here, editors browsing this noticeboard can't respond to every claim you are making. These charges seem much more suitable at ARBCOM than ANI. I realize that you have already compiled a lot of content but I don't think this is a series of accusations that can be resolved at ANI. ANI is just not set up for careful review of this much evidence. If you wish to pursue this at Arbitration, I would take it to ARBCOM and make a case request. Also prioritize, you are given a limited number of words there so just hit the highlights and, if the case is accepted, you can get into the details when you present your evidence. However, given the limited response you have gotten at ANI so far, I'm not sure how far you want to take this investigation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz. I wanted to try ANI as the first step. Will distill it and try it at ArbCom. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could also consider emailing ArbCom directly if there is private evidence that you want to share. Even the case request page may be ill-equipped to handle a complaint that relies on off-wiki evidence. Pinguinn 🐧 03:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read through all the 'evidence' such as it is above, summary: its basically crap. This shouldnt go to arbcom (like everything else) unless the community is unable to solve a problem, and there is an overwhelming lack of a demonstrated problem that needs resolving here, let alone compelling evidence to support that Kautilya is causing the issue. This amounts to writing a wall of text as an end-run around providing clear diffs supporting policy-violating behaviour. Its accusation after accusation with, at best, a 'They are biased' argument. This should be closed unless something substantive can be presented. Not pushed to arbcom because people do not want to read. Its been designed to make you not want to read it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when did Wikipedia community agree that secret canvassing by email during admin elections is okay or encouraged? FWIW, the secret email canvassing by Kautilya3 has included email asking me to WP:GANG up on a very experienced Wikipedia editor, an email to Joshua Jonathan and copied to me that cheered what Kautilya3 called "nice lynching" of a Wikipedia editor, etc. Given Kautilya3's social media activity on the tragic Manipur conflict where he advertises himself as Wikipedian – social media activity he has not yet disclosed fully and clearly on Wikipedia – should Wikipedia abandon WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY guidelines? If you feel all this is okay or WP:COI does not apply here, I will love to read your arguments. (FWIW, please take comments of Joshua Jonathan, Tranga Bellam, Vanamonde93 above with a grain of salt, as they are part of the WP:CAMP that Kautilya3 has either copied to in emails to me or has claimed, in his emails to me, to have had off-wiki discussions about disputes, RfC, en-Wiki editors etc; they are close: you can also check their on-wiki user talk pages and co-editing patterns; IOW, these are not independent, uninvolved en-Wiki editors). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What's the date of that email to me? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Found it; 3 jan 2019. It was a comment by K3 on an ANI-thread regarding an editor he dislikes; it was not canvassing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having off-wiki discussions is not prohibited. Neither is social media activity related to editing on wikipedia. Or are you suggesting we ban every female editor who edits during WIR and socials about it? Because your COI accusations so far are that level of nonsense. I would also suggest a description of an email copied to multiple people as 'secret' is a bit overblown. You dont copy multiple people you barely know on the internet in on an email if you want to keep it a secret. Not unless you are an idiot. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I received numerous emails from Kautilya3. Very few were copied. All the rest were one to one. The emails with secret canvassing, such as the stealth vote request for Vanamonde93, were one to one, and not copied to anyone. Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines on WP:CANVASS and WP:COI are important. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Alanis Morissette

    [edit]
    No further reversions, so stale. Please bring to ANEW (edit warring doesn't require breaking of 3RR) if it resumes. Star Mississippi 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    After noticing they had added some content to Alanis Morissette (disruptively), I initially did assume this editor to be good-faith, trying to fix the MoS problems they had caused. But look at what they did subsequently: claiming I had reverted "a legitimate update" "without reason or explanation" (even though I did explain, see this and this) and restoring their edit repeatedly (despite opposition from me and @Fulfiller, see this). I asked them to stop disrupting the article, but they refused (see this conversation). Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is indeed edit-warring, I'd file a case at ANEW. But it looks like a content dispute and there is no discussion about this on the article talk page. There has been no activity there since January 2024. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz, thanks for your timely reply! Well, I've just started a conversation on the article's talk page. For the reason I didn't file a case regarding them at ANEW, Cruzado didn't violate WP:3RR (so I don't think they'll be prevented from disrupting the article if I did). Btw, I admit my ignorance of the rules. Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, Thedarkknightli and I thank you for providing diffs. It's just that escalating disputes to ANI can lead to unpredictable results as both the reporter and the editor being reported are usually scrutinized. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet that Cruzado will continue to restore their edit unless they're indeffed. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Cullen328 and @LizardJr8, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't want to presume future actions. I would note that it has been 3 days now, without reversion. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment by Steven1991

    [edit]

    Hi, Steven1991 seems to have a pattern of engaging in personal attacks against multiple users, including myself. Attacks seem to generally consist of accusing us of "harassment" after some of us commented on a previous ANI post. [[27]][[28]]. User has made statements indicating that they do not plan to stop even after having been told to do so[[29]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Insanityclown1, the editor has already been blocked after they made these edits so what additional results are you looking for? Also, remember to sign your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaint probably isn't ripe at this point, but was concerned by his comment that made it sound like he had no intention of stopping the activities that got him banned in the first place. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Altenmann the editor was blocked in 2019 for some problems [30], that was over 5 years ago and although the editor has a very sparse editing record, I don't think it should count that much when considering current blocks. I also don't know that it's "exactly same behavior" since at least from the block log the stated reason was "edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny". While edit warring has unfortunately continued. I don't see anyone has presented evidence of the editor logging out. Further using misleading edit summaries wasn't mentioned in the past and seems unlikely considering they were barely using edit summaries at the time.

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

    So what matters is how they actually edit going forward. Now that their block has expired, their editor interaction seems to have restricted themselves to emptying their talk page which they're allowed to do and posting these two comments on ANI [31] [32]. I don't think either of those really cross the line sufficiently for a block.

    OTOH, surprisingly this wasn't discussed previously but many of their recent (direct article) edits both before and after their block seem to clearly be within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. To articles that aren't sure but they're editing stuff which directly mentions the current war e.g. [33] and [34] and before the block [35]. They were already given a CTOP alert for the A-I conflict previously and so informed of the WP:ARBECR requirements so really should not have been making these edits.

    I've directly asked them to stop [36]. If they continue to make edits which are so clearly within the A-I topic area, IMO an admin should just block them under CTOP or at least give a logged warning. These articles are generic enough that most of them don't need ECP and editors need to self regulate. And there's enough that I don't see a partial block will work. If no one is willing to do so from here, opening a WP:A/R/E case would be the simplest solution.

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

    Continued problematic edits by User:Steven1991

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

    It is not “inflammatory”. Your response does not seem to be aligned with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I don’t understand why you seem to be targeting me – there is no bad faith on my part to any extent. Steven1991 (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this user’s contribution history, they appear to have filed several complaints against multiple users over minor disputes. It raises doubts of vexatious complaints. Steven1991 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think both sides could benefit from a little more WP:AGF in this case. Insanityclown, I concur that the edit summary was misleading, and did not reflect the nature of the edits. This is an issue. As noted below, I don't think this necessitates them being deliberately deceptive. It's worth keeping an eye on, but even with the pre-block edit pattern, I don't think this one diff is enough for me to suspend WP:AGF. Do you have any more egregious examples? The few I found were all of the same "could have been a mistake" variety.
    Steven, I can also see how labeling the phrasing changes as "grammar" could be a well-intentioned error. However, your addition of progressive journals like [Mosaic Magazine] adds the impression that other journals have said the same, which changes the meaning of the sentence. Similarly, adding some to make the phrase "adopted by some progressives" changes the meaning from being widely accepted to a minority, which likewise is a content, not a grammar change. Can you see how another editor may have been misled by this edit summary? For good or ill, your contributions are under a microscope now, so you should be careful that your edit summaries accurately reflect their contents.
    Finally, Steven, note that WP:NPA says personal attacks are Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. (emphasis mine). Insanityclown1 provided evidence above. They may be wrong, but it's not a personal attack to be wrong. This is the appropriate place to raise concerns about an editor's behavior, and they did so with evidence. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evelyn Harthbrooke

    [edit]

    First of all, my apologies if this is not the correct venue to discuss this. This dispute originally started as a content dispute but has since - in my opinion - devolved into a conduct dispute. I've there are more appropriate places to have this discussion, I would love to be directed there.

    The relevant article for this dispute is iOS version history and 3 templates included on the article (Template:iPhone supported OS release, Template:iPad supported OS release, Template:iPod Touch supported OS release). The relevant discussions have been held in the following places:

    I'm frankly at the end of my rope here. I've requested multiple times to discuss things first, requested 3 WP:THIRD's, and occasionally other users have joined in on the discussion. But pretty much everything anyone says or does has been left ignored. The user has repeatedly stated that her opinion was final (Evelyn: my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back, among other instances) and with that implying, in my opinion, no willingness to discuss. This is further exemplified in recent days by various requests to discuss being left completely unanswered. As I feel that much of my goodwill has been wiped out by the repeated falsehoods (even after being disproven), repeating the same arguments without acknowledging any counterpoints and bringing up different arguments ad nauseam, refusing to acknowledge any other opinions or disregarding them because "user has left", generally contradictory statements, etc. I'm now taking this here because I'm not sure much constructive discussion can still happen at this point.

    Originally, I wrote out an entire timeline of each relevant edit and revert trying to sum up as objectively as possible the arguments made. However, that resulted in a list of nearly 300 entries. So instead I'll just summarize some of the arguments here, still trying to be as objective as possible in arguments made by others (resorting to direct quotes for most of it). I'm collapsing it because this is still a long list. Although arguable, reading through the talk pages would be the better option, but I do realize that's a long discussion.

    Throughout this all, various reverts and re-reverts were made by both Evelyn and myself. However, I feel like I've provided plenty arguments as to why my reverts were in order on the talk page and have more often than not first continued the discussion on the talk page and waiting for a response, rather than opting to revert, unless I was under the believe that policies like WP:ACCESS were being broken (mostly with the templates in this case) in which I felt making sure the contents of the article remained accessible was of greater concern. Admittedly, for a few of those reverts on the iOS version history article at the start of the dispute, I should have waited longer or let the discussion go further before restoring the section. Evelyn has reverted with every comment she's made (assuming her changes weren't the latest already) across both the article and templates, as well as made multiple reverts without ever addressing the requests to discuss (at best leaving an edit summary), including reverting other changes by myself and George Ho that were not relevant to the discussion or directly attempted to address her concerns.

    With that, we've come to today. I've asked her yet again to respond to the discussions but she only responds by declining to do so, leaving the tables with various accessibility issues and in general removing context from them even for normal readers. After multiple attempts at dispute resolution, it is clear to me that Evelyn isn't open to any actual discussion (even having said as much herself on multiple occasions), and behaves in a disruptive manner, even often going against her own advice or using arguments that seemingly contradict her previous arguments, ignoring policies and guidelines claiming that they no longer apply (and that somehow that means that we should now do the opposite of those guidelines and policies), ignoring other peoples comments and trying to discard my own by claiming I'm biased because I attempted to address her concerns, and repeatedly lying about DFlhb stance on the matter even after having been repeatedly pointed out that she is incorrect.

    Thank you in advance. YannickFran (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This filing and the linked discussions are impenetrably verbose. What is the most concerning type of misconduct, and what three diffs best provide evidence of it? Otherwise, I'm seeing two editors spend far too much time in disagreements that mainly just include the two of them. If third opinions haven't resolved disputes, can WP:DRN or an RfC be tried? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most concerning issue is User Evelyn's repeated reverts while showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes. For the most recent instance, this concerns changes that break accessibility (and in general make the templates unable to stand on their own even for human readers) of the 3 templates mentioned above multiple times, these concerns have been leveled by both myself and George Ho. Edits from both me and George trying to address these issues have been undone by Evelyn over the past few days without any elaboration as to why. These requests to discuss can be found both at User talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting., and in these edits to the iOS version history talk page: [37], as well as in the edit histories of the templates ([38]). In her edits ([39], [40]), and comments on the talk pages ([41]), she dismisses concerns about accessibility claiming she thinks her changes "look better", claiming Wikipedia MOS and policies like MOS:ACCESS are invalid, and dismisses any argument brought up by me because I am "to biased" because I made edits previously (which co-incidentally were mostly attempts to address her previous concerns) or refuses to discuss entirely ([42]). YannickFran (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the shorter summary. I don't see "showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes" supported by the diffs you provided, and I'm seeing this all in the context of too much discussion between the two of you. Once you've co-authored a novella, it's time to call in outside voices, with WP:3O being just a first step in that process.
    I am concerned about an edit summary like this one, including "WP:<insert shorthand here> policies aren’t enforceable". @Evelyn Harthbrooke: care to (succinctly) explain? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "unwillingness to discuss disputed changes" stems in my opinion from both the preceding conflict in which she says "my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back" ([43]) (among other instances with the same sentiment) as well as the repeated requests to discuss and elaborate being left unanswered (both this recent dispute as well as the entire argument) and refusing to acknowledge any counterpoints and continuing to repeat earlier disproved claims. Admittedly, much of that happened prior to the limited scope I established in the comment you're responding to. For an example that does fall within the scope, the afformentioned comments in these 4 edits I made where made on the 17th and 18th of September and in the edit summary of this edit on September 18th, I link to the talk page in hopes to discuss it, but the discussion there is never answered, while she does comment elsewhere, she doesn't address any of the issues raised (other than repeating previous arguments like that policies aren't valid, which I think is fair to say isn't an argument). YannickFran (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    YF, that's just not strong enough evidence. After tireless discussion, a lack of response in the two days since you posted those comments is not misconduct. I'm not a fan of comments like the "my stance" one, it's from more than a year ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm not saying that it is for this scope, I'm only saying that it felt like that sentiment remained going into this discussion for the 3rd time, and at this point I'm more than willing to regard it all as irrelevant if a solution can be found. As for recent events, I feel like it is important to note that her accusation of me reverting [her] edits without discussing my changes first came after the comments I made on the iOS version history talk page. Of course she isn't obliged to answer, but between her comments days earlier dismissing anything I said because of a perceived "bias" and past discussions I hope it is understandable that it came across as such. --YannickFran (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made that comment admittedly without looking at the whole revision history of the templates, since that moment I have gone through the whole revision history and saw that someone else created the templates and made the bulk of edits to them, therefore you aren't the creator nor the main contributor to the templates, and I apologize. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never unwilling to discuss any changes that were disputed; I was just never alerted to the discussions either by ping or by mention on my talk page, I don't have my eyes on talk pages for every article I edit. If a discussion wants to be held and I am asked to participate in it, I only ask that I am pinged about it. But to accuse me of being unwilling to participate in discussions is untrue. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, they're not the only two users involved in this dispute—that article's talk page has seen at least a couple years or so of spirited discussion from various parties of whether those tables should be included or not, although the two of them have been particularly enthusiastic participants from what I've seen. When I gave a 3O (I'm a "she" btw Yannick :P) I saw policy arguments in favor of both sides. I think it would be great if everyone involved would simmer down a bit and approach the discussion with more of an eye towards achieving consensus; at the same time I recognize that it's hard because both sides tend to be convinced that policy is with them, and the issue doesn't leave that much space to compromise. It is a bit strange that an RfC has never been held on that page from what I can see—Yannick, did you consider starting one at any point? It might possibly be more productive than raising the issue here; I kind of felt like it had gone beyond the point where 3O could reasonably help even at the time I arrived. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for speaking up. I didn't mean to ignore the participation of others, but the linked discussions are certainly dominated by the two. I agree about starting an RfC being a good next step. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, are we talking about creating an RfC in regards to the concerns about the content of the templates itself that we're now addressing in this comment three, or about creating and RfC for whether or not the templates should remain on iOS version history (which I believe is what Mesocarp meant given she mentions creating an RfC in reference to the earlier discussions), or both? YannickFran (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what there's still disagreement on. I would have an easier time giving concrete suggestions with Evelyn's input. What I understand right now is that a year-and-a-half ago or so, there was intense disagreement on whether the tables should be there at all, and now there seem to be some complicated arguments between the two of you (and George Ho?) about how much the tables should be there? :P Maybe it would make sense to have the RfC present a set of gradations from "no tables" to "full tables" with some in-between options? This would probably make more sense to begin hashing out on the article's talk page than here, of course. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is that the tables do not belong on the article in question. For the bulk of the article's lifespan (from 2008 until 2022), those templates weren't present. I originally removed them shortly after they were first added (I believe early last year is when these discussions first started), as I felt that they fell out of scope with regard to the article's focus, which is being an overview of each iOS version, not as a one-size-fits-all article that lists each device and every single iOS version they run (List of iPhone models does this incredibly well, and is in my opinion where this information is best suited, even if its not all in one list with x's and checkmarks's). It is my view, and has been since they were originally instated, that these tables fall out of scope. The main reason being is that I believe they are better suited to exist on the core device articles if they really have to exist, due to their higher relevancy and prominence. They receive significantly more views than the iOS version history article. The tables in question also significantly increase the post-expand include size of the article, which has a fixed limit of around 2,000,000 bytes, and due to the templates, it is currently sitting at around 937513/2097152 bytes, whereby without them it would sit at roughly 559291/2097152 bytes.
    This, while disputed by Yannick as being fine, is not fine. It hinders the long term expansion of the article, especially as Apple releases new iOS versions and updates. It also hinders article load times and puts pressure on the servers. It is an issue as if the post-expand include size is exceeded, it can introduce major problems such as citations failing to be included in the article as the article gets expanded. These three templates alone due to their heavy template usage within these templates are so heavy that they add over 380,000 bytes to the include size. While I have given this argument before, we need to actively keep the article under this limit due to the problems I mentioned.
    However, my core complaint is that I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that these templates fall out of the scope of what the article is intended to cover.
    The problem is, Yannick refused to listen to any of my past reasoning, no matter how many reasons I gave. They also continuously accused me of "repeating nonsensical arguments", without understanding the long-term problems that these templates introduce, such as with future article expansion as I mentioned. Why would I shift my view, when I firmly believe that my reasons do make sense?
    I have never intentionally nor purposely partaken in any bad faith discussions nor tried to be disruptive. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay for you to have your position, of course. It's fine for Yannick to have theirs as well. I'd say both of y'all have made some solid arguments and I don't think either of you is likely to ever convince the other. Bringing the larger community into the content debate would really help I think. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never argued that the size limit wouldn't eventually become a problem. As a matter of fact, I've even repeatedly told you that a solution to the size limit problem was a WP:SPLIT, but there it would be more sensible to follow the lead of others articles like the macOS and Windows version histories and move the version details to their dedicated articles (some of which already today include their own version details), but that's a different discussion entirely. Nonetheless, reaching a technical limit of Wikipedia should never be an argument to remove something. The tables were moved to the iOS version history article on October 20th, 2022, you removed them for the first time on May 9th, 2023 so "I originally removed them shortly after they were first added" is not true. YannickFran (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the incorrect pronouns. I tried using they/them whenever I didn't know, and missed it for you.
    Having said that, after that first 3O the discussion died down and with ended with Evelyn restoring the section and abandoning the discussion. Soon after the second 3O, the same happened. So in both instances I didn't feel like it had to be pursued any further because at that point I believed the discussion was over. When the discussion restarted, I operated partially on the assumption that it would be considered a "new" discussion and didn't want to immediately jump to an RfC, the same for the second time the discussion started again earlier this month (especially sine it now had been long enough for the original discussion to have been archived). It just felt "to quick", I guess. However, the accusations of bias, calling me toxic and disruptive, claiming I refused to discuss anything despite the proof to the contrary, and claiming that policies don't apply felt like an escalation which is why I came here. Especially the policy issue feels like a matter that a normal users wouldn't be able to counter, given both George Ho and I already tried. YannickFran (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay, no worries.
    Speaking realistically, I think, if you have a dispute with an editor and one 3O hasn't settled the matter, getting another is kind of unlikely to sway them. 3O isn't binding or definitive or anything, it's just a way to bring in another editor—it works best on distant, obscure pages where two users are locked in a dispute with little hope of a third party turning up, and where both users are prepared to work with the person who arrives to find consensus. An RfC can be more helpful in cases where there are more than two editors nearby who visibly care, and especially when the content dispute is really thorny and the major sides all have reasonable-sounding policy arguments available, which is how this seems to me at least from what I've read so far.
    An RfC can bring an argument to a much more definitive close than general discussion can. If one editor keeps editing an article in obvious contravention of a recent RfC, it makes for a much stronger and more convincing case that they're being disruptively inflexible than if there's just been general discussion about it, especially when that discussion has been kind of inconclusive. Browsing around in the links you posted, I can see that things have gotten kind of nasty between the two of you at certain points, but given that y'all have been arguing on-and-off about the same article for nearly two years or something I'm honestly impressed that both of you have kept your cool as much as you have. ;^^ Not to overlook anything that's happened conduct-wise—if you want to pursue that angle more, you can, I just think both of y'all might find an RfC to be more of a relief in a way, since it could help put the matter more definitively to rest for now even where other editors are concerned. This is ultimately a challenging and complex content dispute, and whatever happens here it will remain that way intrinsically. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit summary was made without thinking; I used improper wording at a time when I was quite tired. What I was trying to say is that Wikipedia style guide policies are not consistently enforced; each article on Wikipedia can differ vastly from the written MOS guidelines due to the vast number of articles that exist. However, specifically with regard to the usage of tables, I have seen more captions be used when tables aren't the core focus of a given section, and additional context is needed to understand what the table's given purpose is, and less captions used when tables are the core focus of a section, or even article, such as on TV show episode list articles. However, my changes on iOS version history with regard to the hardware support templates, were to better separate the tables instead of being in one section, and allowing people to go to a specific hardware support template if necessary via the table of contents, which in my opinion does better for accessibility than table captions, as in my mind they add unnecessary content duplication. Arguably, even the body text in Hardware support isn't necessary as the context implied by the table rows and columns is that they deal with the minimum and maximum OS versions supported by each released model of either an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. I made the changes based on that context and understanding of my experience with editing, reading, and taking in a wide variety of other Wikipedia articles, including articles that have received Good Article or Featured Article status due to their high quality. My changes weren't made to cause accessibility in the tables to regress or anything of that sort. My changes were made to simplify the templates, and allow better separation in the section in question. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've made an RfC planning section where we can take this up in full, if y'all are interested. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I never once lied about DFlhb's stance on the matter, nor was I even talking about that editor. When I brought up the consensus thing in the most recent discussion, it was in reference to a Semi-protected edit request created on November 23, 2023, where the user Lilu126 responded with the following: "The discussion above (#Missing hardware support table?) failed to reach consensus on this issue. Please continue or restart the conversation to seek consensus before reactivating this request."
    That is where I firmly understood that there was no consensus reached on the original issue, which was whether or not the templates should be reinstated, and as no consensus was reached, they shouldn't have been re-added, which is where the issues start. As consensus was never reached, the tables shouldn't have been added back, yet they were; now I am confused as to who re-instated them, but whoever did shouldn't have done so without consensus to re-instate them. DFlhb never even participated in the discussion to give a concrete opinion, they only mentioned the Overview table but did not chime in on the hardware support tables directly, they only participated in the conversation when the copyright violations were taking place, and they were talking about the release notes tables in that argument, so they never once directly argued for or against the tables according to the original discussion in Archive #7 of the iOS version history talk page.
    I have also never once intentionally or purposely acted in bad faith. I have always, to the best of my ability, tried to follow and understand Wikipedia's Manual of Style and respect that as best I can. However I am by no means a perfect editor, I make mistakes. But I genuinely do not believe that my template changes (removing the caption and revamping the version fields to use sub columns (iPhone OS and iOS for example)) cause any regressions to accessibility. Even then, I do firmly believe that the templates in question do not have a place on that article, so in that respect, my stance on that is respectfully firm. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kinda the crux of this entire discussion. You keep saying that a consensus had to be reached to keep the tables, despite that at that point the only discussion about it had concluded to keep them. At no point was there ever a consensus to remove them. You have repeatedly claimed that (presumably) based on Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support despite that one of the 2 people involved there (DFlhb) just a week later changed their position to support the tables remaining which they re-iterated when they self reverted. This has been pointed out multiple times, but you have repeatedly claimed a consensus was needed to keep them ([44], [45]). Months later in May the first discussion was had, they continued to remain on the article afterwards, more months passed, you removed them, the protected edit request was made, and I reverted the article to its original state and requested again to discuss it first per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS where my opinion was joined by others, and you were the only one arguing against.
    As for the accessibility issues, let me be clear that accessibility is not the end-all-be-all, I'm more than happy to agree with that. But it is still important and even if the relevant policies wouldn't be enforced anymore (which they are), that isn't a reason to go out of our way to do the exact opposite of what these policies said and remove existing accessibility tools. examples had been given as to why the changes were problematic, especially for screen readers (even now, keeping the navbar in the header is not something that should be done). Saying that you "do not believe that my template changes cause any regressions to accessibility" after it had been pointed out that they did with both examples and policies, that doesn't feel like an honest argument (especially not when the only answer to that from you boiled down to "this looks prettier and policies aren't enforceable"). Captions exist for a reason. Body text, header cells, and headings aren't a replacement for captions. Pretty much every image on Wikipedia has a caption, even though they are (pretty much) always accompanied by a header and body text that already describes the subject for the very same reason. This isn't even just Wikipedia policies, this is generally how HTML functions and how screen readers deal with that. YannickFran (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DFlhb was saying bring back the hardware support tables if the version overview tables (showing compatible devices) weren't brought back, from what I'm understanding with regard to their phrasing. They weren't saying to bring them back non-conditional, and in my view, they do not have a place on the article. From 2008 to Oct 2022, they never existed. There are no valid reasons to have these hardware support templates on an article related to discussing the history of iOS, not how long each device supports what iOS version. The iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch articles are where they belong, especially considering that combined, the respective device articles receive significantly more page views than iOS version history (see here for what I mean). Therefore I genuinely believe that these templates have more of a purpose existing on the individual device articles than iOS version history.
    I raise one of my original points again: No other version history article, including Android's, lists all Android models to have ever shipped and their original and latest Android version. Granted, the scope that Android covers goes far beyond just smartphones and tablets, but I thought I would make this comparison because iOS is still its own entity, the only things that iOS version history should cover is the general chronological history of the operating system, which was its purpose for over 14 years, before an editor decided to (without seeking consensus) to move the hardware support templates over to the article, without even getting feedback from the community on whether or not it was a good idea. And in my view, these templates should've never been transferred over. I firmly believe, like I've mentioned several times, that they belong on the individual device articles. And even then, each iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch model, in the infobox, shows its original iOS version, and the final or current iOS version that was made available for the device.
    I did say I would no longer fight for their removal, but I have realized that this is something I should fight for. If an RFC is held, and a conclusion is reached to keep the hardware support tables on the article, instead of them existing on their respective articles, then I will respect that. Until then I vehemently disagree with these tables disrupting the content flow and purpose of the article. The overview table is fine, it shows a compact overview of each iOS version, the given release date, and the device EOL. We don't need a table that duplicates information. You have originally said that the overview does not provide the same information, but the overview could be changed to add a "Initial devices" column showing what iOS version appeared on what devices, adopting the same approach as the hardware support templates but without having to have three individual templates on the page, and potentially rendering the dedicated Hardware Support tables unnecessary, as the information the reader needs would be in the Overview table at the top, instead of all the way at the bottom. That would be another solution instead of moving the templates back to the individual device articles; it would also reduce the amount of tables that need to be maintained. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-instated the table captions, after reading the table MOS further, and I have removed the repetitive body text in the Hardware support section, however I have kept the subheadings to continue allowing easier navigation to each template. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Storrs-Mansfield

    [edit]

    A couple of IP editors (137.99.142.46 and 98.191.14.194 to name two specifically) have been engaged in a widespread campaign to attempt to rename Storrs, Connecticut to Storrs-Mansfield. A move request was entered in September 2023 (see Talk:Storrs, Connecticut), and the request was soundly rejected by the community. These IP editors have made changes across en.wiki to implement this change without consensus. User talk:98.191.14.194 contains a discussion in which the IP is unwilling to concede to multiple other editors on the issue. Since this appears to be a widespread abuse issue, this was the only venue I could think to address it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They may have a point, even the official website of Mansfield, that Storrs is part of, lists its address as Storrs Mansfield. Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they can start a proper discussion on the talk page and gain consensus. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Canterbury Tail talk 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The USPS, for reasons of their own, lists the post office name for this place as "Storrs-Mansfield" (possible because the post office serves multiple localities). This does not make the name a WP:COMMONNAME. The discussion happened, in September 2023, at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut, and the consensus was that the name change was not appropriate. The two IP editors are essentially edit-warring across multiple articles to make and keep this name change. I'm asking for a temporary block so that the discussion (currently at User talk:98.191.14.194, but more properly at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut, can reach a new consensus. (How long is consensus valid for? Is last year's consensus no longer valid?) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the website itself lists it's postal address as Storrs-Mansfield, a lot of it's contents alternate between that and a standalone Storrs for addresses.
    Some examples for a standalone Storrs are at Playgrounds, a Proposed Zoning Map Amendment, community flyers, Food programs, and FAQs. It's quite inconsistent, though the address at the base of the site may be optimised for the USPS system.
    Storrs would come across as the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME though, and the previous consensus appeared to have been decided as such from looking at the talk page. R0paire-wiki (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye on this dispute there, I'm a UConn fan and have also hiked Mansfield Hollow so I know the area well enough to help out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter is not an edit war and should not even be up for debate. It is an example of Wikipedia editors reversing edits which improve articles based on correct, official, and truthful information - with properly added citations in the article, supported by numerous accurate and substantial primary and secondary sources. It is an example of reversals without the inclusion of replacement citations. It is an example of "consensus" disregarding official sources and the overwhelming community usage of this name. And most of all it is an example of editors involved who do not live in, have nothing to do with, and have maybe never even heard of the community in question or, if they have, they have not made it clear. (The only example is the single user here who claims they've visited.)
    I'll make it more clear then: You may not abuse this talkpage to present lengthy arguments about content, that isn't its purpose
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The official and legitimate name of the community anchored by the main campus of the University of Connecticut is named Storrs-Mansfield. This community, encompassed by the areas of ZIP Codes 06268 and 06269, was named after early settlers Major Moses Mansfield and the Storrs family, both of whom owned a majority of land in the Town of Mansfield. The other community within the municipality is Mansfield Center, encompassed by the area of ZIP Code 06250. ZIP Code 06269 was established as a boundary of the University of Connecticut property, including but not limited to its use in the USPS' mail contexts, but it doesn't exist outside of 06268 as it were.
    Storrs-Mansfield does not have its own municipal government. The Town of Mansfield is the municipality and is actually the smallest entity of distinction at the state level. Storrs-Mansfield is commonly considered a village, but it is not incorporated.
    The argument hangs on the fact that there is a census-designated place with a name label of "Storrs" which does include a boundary within the village of Storrs-Mansfield and town of Mansfield, but itself does not include businesses, residences, or significant features associated with, identified with, and labeled as being in Storrs-Mansfield. (Or, for the sake of the argument, in "Storrs" either.) The other example used in the discussion was "Downtown Storrs", which is not an official name nor is it commonly used. The area that the editor was referencing is officially referenced as the Mansfield Downtown Partnership.
    As is common knowledge, and is not in dispute here at Wikipedia, census-designated places do not have any legal status or standing, being created exclusively for statistical purposes. In fact, their use have actually been superseded by the Census Bureau themselves in favor of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. In our case, Storrs-Mansfield is encompassed by ZCTA5 06268 and ZCTA5 06269, and Mansfield Center is encompassed by ZCTA 06250. Census-designated place boundaries, geographies, and names do not have any relationship with or bearing on local or state government and do not match with what citizens and community members know to be their community. This is the case here. Place names are arbited by and are supremely determined by the United States Postal Service and it is inappropriate to use a census-designated place name when it does not represent a majority of what the article is actually about, and in both cases, the actual community at hand.
    When corrective edits were initiated here on Wikipedia, correct and verifiable references were included that were properly cited in the article. These included official sources, from the Town of Mansfield, which corroborated and accurately listed the addresses of municipal and town-related facilities as being in Storrs-Mansfield. The references also included listings from local businesses, utilities, and federal entities which all support the name of the community being named Storrs-Mansfield. Storrs-Mansfield is the official and supported name of this community. When other editors reversed these constructive edits, they did not provide any verifiable or official sources to support the destructive edit.

    Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld) is a village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States.[1][2][3]

    It is clear Storrs-Mansfield is the commonly-used name to refer to this community.
    The only reason this thread on the Administrator's noticeboard exists is because editors, or groups of editors, prefer to drive away constructive, corrective, and truthful edits. I have seen numerous replies to the discussion by editors who say something along the lines of "The residents of Storrs refer to the town as Storrs." This disqualifies those individuals from participating or having a binding opinion on the subject because any response like that has bias. It immediately assumes a resolution, and, in support of an incorrect and unsubstantiated name. Some other editors came from wherever, most likely due to a ping somehow, and placed warnings on me. But it's patently unfair the same exact message haven't been placed on the users engaged in the discussion on this page, users involved directly with the changes/edits/reversals on the articles in question, or any future involved stakeholder. If I am getting warned for making corrective edits referencing properly the truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, any and all editors reversing the same must have the same warning notice placed on their page. By not doing so, being that they are taking just as much a side as I would be in the theoretical "edit war", you are presenting that Wikipedia has itself declared the correct stance. You cannot do that, during an open matter. You cannot favor one editor over the other, especially in the case of the TRUTH PREVAILING.
    There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules.
    In the United States, there are many towns and communities with double placenames. By allowing any of these and not Storrs-Mansfield, which is corroborated by official and substantial references, Wikipedia contradicts itself. Anyone in this discussion who supports any reference to a singular "Storrs" must support the replacement of any and all references to valid double placenames like Storrs-Mansfield, lest they be hypocritical and not credible. Any administrator which continues to allow this contradiction, and does not allow the correct and truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, would no longer be considered responsible in their ability to uphold the facts over an opinion.
    I have posed the question to the other participants of the discussion: What if the town in which you lived was capriciously referred to as something else? "Banana, USA" may just be where you are reading this. And if enough people start using that in turn of phrase, then all of these users would be obligated to adjust each reference to your town to "Banana, USA". That is wrong and of course would never happen. What if people just start creating false claims and perpetuating them? This happens all of the time, and it's obvious that this discussion is not rooted in vandalism or malfeasance. It is and was inappropriate to single me out for trying to improve Wikipedia by making corrective edits in reference to this place name - by attempting to block and reverse my edits, which also contained substantial constructive changes, by attempting to place numerous and many warnings on me claiming that I am being disruptive "when things weren't going your way", and by not treating ANY of the other editors in the discussion the same way as I have been.
    I am making every effort to improve Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedic reference of distinction. It is clear there are many policies in place designed to maintain accuracy and truth. Why then, are we even considering a discussion of an untruthful place name?
    Stop attacking me and stop perpetuating falsehoods. Anyone who attempts to reverse my truthful and corrective edits should have the disruptive editing process initiated unto them. If that doesn't happen, that's not fair and means any shred of credibility Wikipedia currently lays claim to would be extinguished, by allowing such a claim to prevail.
    Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name. Do not suggest otherwise.

    References

    1. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06268". United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06268. YOU ENTERED: 06268 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
    2. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06269". United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06269. YOU ENTERED: 06269 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
    3. ^

    98.191.14.194 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Asserting you're right isn't a justification for edit-warring. A look at WP:COMMONNAME would be a good idea too, along with WP:NPA. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "assuming you're right" misses the point that the corrective edit was substantiated by droves of verifiable and official references, correctly cited in the edit and re-exemplified here. It is one thing to make an edit, but it is another to provide a number of correct references to support it.
    There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules. Any user who reverts a corrective edit, maintaining the truth, is the one who should be perjured - not myself.

    Why haven't you or anyone else involved with this discussion placed equivalent messages or notices on the pages of any other user involved in the discussion? That is patently unfair. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "asserting you're right." You may not edit-war, nor may you use Wikipedia as a battleground. You are expected to follow the policy-compliant advice of other editors, which you are not doing, and which is why you're here. Dial it back; you aren't entitled to be sole arbitrator of content or style. Neither Wikipedia notr this noticeboard are courts of law. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You nor any other editor do not have any right to censor any part of my reply. And, for the record, "why I'm here" is because other editors do not know how to identify correct and verified references, properly added to support a corrective change in an article. Other editors do not know when to use the official and, obviously community-supported, name of a local community.
    Since asking the name of the town in which you live would be considered personal, let's use the US President. If someone said he lived in "Hydrogen, VA" what would be your response? We all know that's not true. But if enough liars say it, your position is that Wikipedia would list it.
    Like I've said, this isn't an edit war. It isn't even a conflict - it's an example of editors not allowing the truth to prevail. Do not censor my replies. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I (and any other editor in good standing) do have the right to collapse long digressions into a content dispute. ANI is for user conduct issues, not content arguments, and you appear to be importing the conduct issues that concern other editors to this noticeboard. Last chance. You will be blocked if you unhat your diversion again. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, keep your hat on - it's not even your color. My reply was NOT a digression. It is and was relevant to the the discussion at hand. But you're saying that it is a content-based discussion, so where is the right forum? Reminder: Another editor started the topic here. That's not on me.
    Secondly, my conduct is acceptable because I am upholding Wikipedia's values of accurate information, use of verified and reliable sources, and correct editing technique (including actually citing sources when I make an edit). You nor any other editor can argue that any of the edits I have made on this matter have been anything but complete, technically sound, and appropriate edits.
    It is not considered forum shopping if I was not the one who initiated the topic here, and, in such a case have to use the content-based forum. It is doubly not appropriate to silence my replies if this isn't even the right place - which should have been made clear in an upfront fashion. You have zero right to opine on the facts presented and call them a digression, diversion, or off-topic in the first place. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article talkpage is the place to politely and respectfully discuss and resolve content. You will have to change your attitude toward other editors. You will be expected to present suggestions that comply with the manual of style, which is why people keep telling you about COMMONNAME. Total conviction that you're right, everybody else is wrong, and that they are to be treated as opponents to be subdued through walls of text and denigration is one way to lose editing privileges. And that's why your conduct is being discussed at this conduct noticeboard. Don't exhaust our patience. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And since you've placed two tit-for-tat warnings on my talkapge and exhibited no inclination to actually listen, you're blocked for 48 hours. Any recurrence of the battleground behavior on display here will earn a much longer block. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The completely-missing-the-point wall of text unblock demand doesn’t leave much room for optimism. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weighing in here, since a colleague here at UConn told me about the discussion. It's obvious this IP user (using an IP registered to UConn) is new to editing on Wikipedia and wasn't immediately knowledgable on certain policies. I do not doubt the spirit of any warning or advice given to him here or on the user talk page, but he has a point - reference-supported edits aren't inherently destructive. Respect that this user did not make further reversals once the discussion had started.

    All the same, an official determination hasn't been made so just throwing him in the cooler isn't appropriate. Many of the responses here do have preconceived notions that "Storrs" is correct and the end-all-be-all, and the user pointing that out does not mean the IP editor considers you an enemy.

    I was the user last year who requested the page name change. I did that because I searched out that policy, and notice how I didn't even change the body text at that point, and haven't done so yet again.

    But, saying that the request achieved consensus may be flawed - No participant provided any supporting evidence or reference, and one basically said "I don't care for the source you've suggested" and then cited WP:COMMONNAME, without providing any examples. I do not disagree with WP:COMMONNAME - but, as evidenced in the IP user's argument, there is a substantial amount of sources which differ from the supposed consensus, not to mention "Storrs-Mansfield" continues to be commonly used.

    I've gone ahead and moved this discussion to the article talk page. Any of the editors here could have done that, so saying "Why aren't you using the article talk page" when the IP editor is simply replying to your response is unproductive. I'd recommend further discussion to occur there, and to let any prior bygones be bygones. Jonathanhusky (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A few points in regards to their (no idea how the IP identifies) behavior. Yes, the stopped reversion after the warning, but their reaction after the warning including tit for tat warnings on Acroterion 's pages. In addition (assuming both IPs discussed here are the same) they deleted the discussion that you started on the name change. That speaks to complete disregard for anyone on Wikipedia's opinions. The IP got a 48 hour bounce. When they come back you would like to mentor them, go ahead. I'm guessing the behavior won't change.
    I'll go ahead and post the google compare on storrs vs. storrs-mansfield on the talk page for the village.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The block concerned their contemptuous behavior toward other editors and their treatment of the topic as a cage match fight to the death, accompanied by walls of text on this noticeboard and a disregard for any voice but their own. However a reasonable discussion (as modeled by Jonathanhusky and Naraht) turns out, it's fine with me. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated accusations of bad faith in attempt to discredit, which is disrupting ability to work constructively

    [edit]

    There has been a Talk page "war" that has gone well off the rails at this point involving my overly-verbose self (sorry) and the original article writer for multiple articles. I self-declared a COI and attempted good faith extensively, but the views of the other editor @Desertarun have only become more unprofessional. If nothing more, their conduct is making it difficult for me to engage with other editors who have been helpful in the conversation (thank you to @ProfGray in particular). @Desertarun has been libelous repeatedly, accusing me of WP:CANVASSING when I did not, of editing in bad faith when I have not, and has constantly referenced WP rules in error in an attempt to discredit the source, and myself for using them (incorrectly citing WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY), and constantly brings up my self-declared WP:COI as if it is disqualifying at every level. In one instance, they opened a formal Requested Move in my name (even though I had not formally endorsed the requested move they proposed in my name).

    A major concern behind this, I am increasingly confident that user @Desertarun has their own undeclared COI, or at least a problematic bias deserving attention. One of the reasons for this dispute devolving was they wrote multiple articles in ~2020 with the unusual disambiguator (DAB) of "(slave trader)", which is almost entirely unique to their articles. Their articles covered historical figures of some note for multiple "significant views", but wrote only on their slave trading aspects. There has been no dispute of their notoriety as slave traders, nor even that this is an inaccurate DAB, but it certainly isn't one aligned with WP:CONSISTENCY as almost all similar biographical articles use DABs like "(merchant)" or "(lord mayor)".

    However, and this is why this really feels like it needs the incidents board, I have to be blunt and forego politeness: user @Desertarun is not a careful reader, and has included many inaccuracies in their articles systemically. More problematically, at the time I discovered their articles, it included invented phrasing like "Baker and Dawson slave trading company" when the source they cited referred to them as "Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company." Uncareful reading has led to many confusions in their articles, some minor, but also some major, and these I have detailed extensively on Talk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader). What is even more disconcerting is that this user is writing on figures of genuine historical importance, and there is a serious concern that their content has spurred citogenesis/circular reporting issues not just on Wikipedia, but in secondary sources that they have then used to reinforce their own biases. For instance, see: Talk:John_Dawson_(slave_trader)#Requested_move_20_September_2024. @Desertarun not only arbitrarily accuses me of bad faith, of the source material being both primary and unreliable (it is neither), but... they are literally fighting against a mistake they (and possibly others) clearly made where they simply confused two related J. Dawsons. Newly-digitized source material written by the grandson of John Dawson (b 1799), and great great grandson of James Dawson (b 1752), makes abundantly clear that John Dawson wasn't even alive at the time of James Dawson's slave trading peak in the 1780s. And yet the article John Dawson (slave trader) is written overtly covering James Dawson's exploits. Rather than recognize this error, @Desertarun has attacked me, and the source (HS Phillips 1953), the long-deceased flippin' grandson of John Dawson, of not knowing the correct names of his own family. This incident pushes past a red line for me, where it is clear that @Desertarun is not interested in reasoned debate, but simply seeks to block every correction I attempt to these articles, which are riddled with errors and WP:WEIGHT issues. Arbitration and some sort of more-than-volunteer involvement in the Talk of Peter Baker (slave trader) and John Dawson (slave trader) feels warranted at this stage.

    I have a self-declared COI to these individuals, which I stated up front, and outlined explicitly here[46]. But these repeated attacks on my character and wilfull ignorance of Wikipedia policy and codes of conduct are making it very difficult to have reasoned conversation about this controversial topic. I really can't just keep responding to every libelous attack on my character to ensure my original query is not discounted due to accusations of bad faith. This is making the Talk pages unnecessarily long and confusing to follow.

    Thank you for stepping in and helping to resolve this issue.

    Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that I have removed a transclusion of the non-free image File:Citogenesis.png from this report, since it has no non-free use rationale for ANI and isn't a subject of (or otherwise discussed in) this report, meaning having it has little effect over a link to citogenesis or WP:citogenesis and thus fails WP:NFCC#9. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At its essence this dispute centres around this users desire to remove the disambiguator (slave trader) from the name of his ancestor Peter Baker (slave trader). This user has a declared WP:COI, but doesn't understand the limitations this brings to his edits. Another of his relatives is John_Dawson (slave_trader). He recently did a request move for John Dawson to James Dawson. That article has 14 references that call this person John Dawson and he's wanting this move based upon just one self published source - by another of his relatives. I believe this ANI was made because in that page move request I said i believe it was a "Bad faith" nomination, I've now struck those words from my oppose move vote. Desertarun (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition the work he's using to edit the Peter Baker (slave trader) article i believe to be both Primary, unpublished, unreliable and a WP:COPYVIO. It was written by one of his relative in 1953 and is held in a museum collection. This user uploaded the file himself and I believe it needs looking at to determine the exact problem. It is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Item_SAS-25A-1-9_-_3_Generations_of_Old_Liverpool_Shipbuilders.pdf Desertarun (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed an error on the article relating to this source, and looked into it as I did. It's an unpublished pamphlet handwritten by one of the subjects ancestors and it's unclear what it's based on. It might be helpful if other editors give their thoughts on if it's a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question on "unpublished": this document is part of the National Museums Liverpool permanent collection, accession SAS/25A/1/9. @ProfGray wrote this citation out. What I did was digitize it and upload it to Wikimedia commons, such that it could be read and scrutinized. Is a museum archive item an "unpublished" document? See: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/papers-re-baker-and-dawson-family-shipbuilders-liverpool
    My TLDR: Desertarun has written numerous articles that contain inaccuracies. In a most extreme case, they wrote one titled after the wrong J. Dawson. Document SAS/25A/1/9 is a clear-as-day proof of this, as John Dawson wasn't the son-in law of Peter Baker, James Dawson was. I think we can trust John Dawson's grandson, author of the museum archive document, to report that accurately. This has become a possible citogenesis/circular reporting incident. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created in December 2020; the cited references seem to have been published earlier than this. Brunton (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Document SAS/25A/1/9 isn't proof of anything. Its the disputed source - it is handwritten in an exercise book! Its a primary source and no doubt riddled with inaccuracies. Desertarun (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have further sorted out (I believe) part of the John Dawson - James Dawson confusions and posted these to both the Peter Baker and John Dawson pages. TLDR: there was a John Dawson slave trader that went bankrupt in 1793 and died in 1812 (Pope 2007). But this isn't the Dawson from Baker and Dawson. James Dawson (of Baker and Dawson) remained in charge of the company until his death in 1824 (Phillips 1953). It's a simple correction to disambiguate these two J. Dawsons made possible by this Baker-Dawson family lineage document (Phillips 1953). Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of observers and posterity for linked relevant discussion to this incident, see [47], which addresses these questions confirming this is a published source per WP:RS, and is indeed WP:SECONDARY. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was more that this something someone wrote, it's an interesting historical object but that it exists and is accessible doesn't make it a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Placing an object in a museum isn't 'publication' by any reasonable definition, but regardless of that, the document in question simply does not meet Wikipedia requirements as a reliable source: WP:RS requires that sources be reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It cannot be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the RS standard is used for sources that are used to establish notability. I don't think that primary sources are forbidden from articles. They just have to be used carefully and judiciously. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question here is not to do with the source on its own, it's that the source in question is contradicted by published independent RS. Brunton (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing down your "family records and traditions" doesn't make it reliable, if it did you could just setup a website containing the same information. If a historian was investigating the subject they might find the pamphlet an interesting historical object, but self published sources should have some standards. Maybe it could be used as a primary source using intext attribution, but then it would be a matter of due if the writings of the subject great great grandson should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I recommendations: My sense is that @Desertarun has been mostly civil, not disruptive, though I disagree with: charging "bad faith" (even w link to humor page), certain policy assertions (e.g., primary), and the unusual technique of creating an WP:RM that they actually oppose, perhaps to make a WP:Point. If admins agree with these concerns, I suppose that can be communicated to the editor, no need for further sanction IMO.
    AN/I is for conduct, not content disagreements, right? I've already discussed the reliability problems with the 1953 family history manuscript (i.e., unreliable for most purposes), and the proposed name changes, on the relevant Talk pages. If need be, these content diagreements could be resolved with e 3PO or RfC.
    If the above is roughly on target, then @Crawdaunt could be advised on how to best pursue their content concerns outside of ANI and to not restate same issues in multiple locations. ProfGray (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for considered responses all. To be absolutely clear, we are talking about this document: Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. SAS/25A/1/9. National Museums Liverpool.
    It is published by National Museums Liverpool per definition of published in WP:RS. National Museums Liverpool is an independent body that took this information and independently judged it to be of merit for storage in its permanent collection. Is this scientific peer review? No. But that standard is not held for most historical documents from an era before modern peer review.
    WIth that said: @Liz yes absolutely. Regardless, this is not a primary source. The author was born 150 years after the subject matter died. The author has a COI. This an incredibly important distinction per WP:RS, particularly for historical documents which are often written by individuals with COIs related to the subject matter (but without whom, we would not know the history).
    FINALLY: this incident report is about the libel I am facing from @Desertarun. If we must focus it to a specific event, I will cite [48]. To give further context to this: on Peter Baker (slave trader), @Desertarun actually invited me to contribute to the page using Phillips (1953) as my source (link). When I wrote in this information, suddenly, he attacks me and the source in an effort to discredit both under spurious definitions. I am disappointed these continue to be raised here, and ask editors to consider if their perception is coloured by @Desertarun's original framing, or if it is arrived at fully independently - It can absolutely be the latter, but request a moment of reflection here.
    Regarding the discussion on these controversial pages: I would please request a more civil policed discussion that considers the points being raised for their legitimacy, and not solely for who said them. I am dredging up some longstanding historical confusions, inaccuracies, and more by going down this rabbit hole. For instance, see: [49], which contains a further account of how this name confusion may have arisen, given the original source of Williams (1897) self-acknowledges their own source had the name wrong, and it was Williams (1897) who did the correction to "John Dawson". I now believe this is the root of the citogenesis issue plaguing this and other documents, and now also Wiki pages. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I skimmed the early part of this thread earlier but frankly barely remember it so I have no real idea who you are. I think you're someone's descendant but I don't particularly care. The problem seems to be that you lack any good sources to challenge the existing ones. The one you keep promoting is highly questionable for Wikipedia purposes. It might very well be correct but that's not for us to decide. This seems to be a classic case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to convince someone else to do a write up based on your findings and get it published somewhere suitable to correct the historical record rather than trying to start with us. Failing that you could do a write up yourself and try to get someone reliable to publish it. Again I'm really unsure of who you are and I'm fairly sure if say the same to a professional historian completely uninvolved or unconnected to any of this previously. (Well I'd suggest they write it up and get it published aa the first suggestion .) Note that the evidence presented here suggests that even if we did contribute to the alleged problem, we're definitely not the ones who started it so it's not like this is a problem we created. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Although at this point all references are additionally supported after requests to support further (recent edit requested by ProfGray). I agree and have recused myself from these pages any further unless requested for comment.
    I agree there is also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns both for my own edits, but also for the original conceptions of these pages. Desertarun wrote over a dozen articles in 2020 on historic figures with the unusual DAB (slave trader), which comes almost exclusively from Desertarun and isn't standard for slave traders of this time, except those articles written by Desertarun. They then nominated many for WP "did you know." So if you invent a DAB, then pump it to the front page, and also invite edits by a fellow Wiki editor based on a newly-digitized source, but then reject them and start using libel and making false claims about the content, I believe there is a conduct issue and also a systematic attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
    On the WP:RS concern, @ProfGray has worked very constructively to adopt the information from this source where it is appropriate, and raise concern where it is not.
    This is my last comment here. I do believe it is right to have raised this incident, and accept if the judgement is that I have been at fault in no small part. I hope the logging of this incident might be useful in the future if further concerns about Desertarun-written "(slave trader)" DAB articles arise. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTHERE editor

    [edit]

    Nothingbutthetruth2006 is purely a troll account created to cause WP:SNEAKY vandalism by deceptively terming sources like Oxford University Press as "unreliable" in order to censor the content despite warnings. First he edit warred with his multiple IPs[50][51] and now he is shamelessly causing disruption with a new account he created to evade 3RR.

    Similarly, he falsely claimed that "Your source (Ahir, 2018) mentions Majumdar as a Nationalist"[52] and when I told him that nobody ever used such a source for the concerning claim[53] he then falsely accused me of comprehension problems and went to claim it is "directly cited after the claim that he was a Hindu nationalist for the claim" instead of rectifying his false claim.[54] Undoubtedly WP:NOTHERE. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will like to present my side of affairs here very plainly and I would really appreciate if the concerned administrator could see the history of the edits. First and foremost its very funny that he is accusing me of calling Oxford University Press as unreliable, in reality I was the one which was citing multiple publications of the Oxford University Press as proof. My problem was the he was making a wildly unorthodox claim that Majumdar promoted Hindu Nationalist interpretations of history and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar to begin and in which he is said to be a Hindu Nationalist historian in passing. the current citation on the claim that he was a Nationalist that is citation no [4] was also originally added by Me along with other sources. Also I am not a troll account. Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By saying "and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar" you have verified this report. There are 4 different academic sources cited for saying he presented Hindu nationalist views and all of them verifies the information. Ratnahastin (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps you do not know how citation works \, they mention it in passing and dont make a case for it . also Frontline is a pop magzine, and if you are talking about the number I had 5 sources saying he isnt a Hindu Nationalist but purely a Nationalist historian with the likes of people like Romilla Thapar saying the same Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor being disruptive on talk page

    [edit]

    Over the last few days (I suspect) one IP editor (a range of IPs all coming out of London) have been disruptive on Talk:Gender-critical feminism, some comments have been removed but there is wide agreement they are in violation of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. I am not sure what options we have for dealing with these editors but something needs to be done to get this to stop. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I shall stop editing then, I thought I was being helpful, :( 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:7896:3C92:6D02:675B (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to stick around, I would suggest creating an account and working to improve a less controversial topic that interests you (or a Random one that doesn't), until you have a better grasp on how editing and discussion works on Wikipedia. Help:Introduction and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure contain tutorials which are useful for newcomers. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last day, IP 2a00:...:675b made 16(!) replies containing unconstructive rants about "gender ideology" and "newspeak" on the page, over 8KB of text; I removed their comments which were not threaded, which was before I saw this ANI thread. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They just tried to revert your cleanup.
    Typically in cases like this, an admin can block the Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01::/64 IP range for a week and hope the disruption stops. If that ended up not helping and the disruption returns, then after that a talk page protection can be considered. Raladic (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually after checking the /64 edit history, this user is the same that also did some talk page disruption last month ([55], [56]) and was blocked then by @Isabelle Belato (for the second time after having been blocked a few days prior), so I guess this is really that the IP user is just returning for more disruption this time. So, I guess we'll see if another IP block timeout works or not. Raladic (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shockingly(!) after their many promises to stop, the range is continuing to disrupt the page. In one they blame (rather, they rhetorically imagine blaming, for the sake of analogy) the 2023 Nashville school shooting on the International Transgender Day of Visibility. In another they threaten to (and then claim to) donate to "a GC movement". Most recently they left a a blank comment just to soapbox more in the edit history. Pinging Rosguill, because you seem to be active; looks like a longer block on the range is necessary, given their obvious WP:NOTHERE behavior and perpetual failure to get the memo. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for a month due to the odd and disruptive edit summary usage. signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP range

    [edit]

    103.38.17.0/24 Has edits going back years, mostly disruptive (OR and outright vandalism, mostly no-ES with unexplained removals and unsourced edits). The IPs appear to belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symon Sadik in line with that network's focus on Shakib Khan and Cinema of Bangladesh (e.g. [57]).

    I can't see anthing good coming from this range and a block appears necessary considering the extent and amount of disruption that is coming from here [even if we were to disregard socking]. Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gotitbro, please provide examples of this disruption you're upset about. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FANPOV insertion: [58], [59], [60]; vandalism: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] are some of these. Most of the edits from the range are box-office fudging (some examples): [69], [70], [71], [72]) and just general disruption in South Asian cinema related articles [as mentioned above "OR and outright vandalism, mostly no-ES with unexplained removals and unsourced edits" is usual within these edits by the disruptor]. Gotitbro (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Gotitbro,
    The edits I checked were pretty bad so I've blocked the range for a week. I have limited experience with range blocks so if another administrator could check my work, that help would be welcome. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced bloat on Argentine demographics

    [edit]

    Several ranges of IPs are persistently inflating numerous Argentine demographics without source. Recently the most active ranges are 41.250.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (eg. diff in French diaspora), 105.155.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 41.141.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 105.154.0.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (blocked). IPs with identical behavior were around at least since August 2023 (diff by 105.156.13.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), and became particularly active from March 2024. Some have had short blocks, but more comprehensive broad and long term blocks are anticipated, even at the expense of collaterals. Note that ST47ProxyBot caught some, if that helps.

    Observed ranges (revised):

    Some of their frequent targets:

    They are also globally active:

    --Wotheina (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more illustrative examples:

    --Wotheina (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wotheina, thank you for identifying these IP ranges but you need to provide some diffs of the damage that is being done because no one is going to go through the contribution history of all of these IP accounts looking at all of their edits. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I had to.
    Observed ranges (revised):
    --Wotheina (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still an awful lot of information to comb through. I'm not optimistic that there will be an admin or editor willing to spend the time to plow through all of this but who knows, maybe one will! But I know I don't have the time to do so. You might look through this page and see ANI reports that are quickly responded to and model your next complaint on the format they have. They are generally brief and concise and easy to quickly digest. I appreciate the time you took to put this all together but it's just a lot of data to assess. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit warring and possible conflict of interest by User:Earthh

    [edit]

    Earthh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Long history (for over a decade now) of removal of sourced content and edit warring at Mr. Nobody (film)‎, creating an alternative reality where that film was a hit and persistently removing sourced content that says the film was a box office flop, despite the film's own director having called it a financial failure, which is sourced in the article. They even created a new rule and keep removing the film's box office gross because they claim (without a source) that "the film was released on streaming services in most countries", but it was released theatrically in all of its production countries and it still flopped in all of them and everywhere else. They seem to act like a publicist (which falls under WP:COI) by removing even the slightest negative sourced content about Jared Leto and any article related to him, most notably when they claimed that Leto's performances in Suicide Squad and Morbius were acclaimed by critics despite several sources saying the opposite, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this. User has argued with several editors and received several warnings from different editors about their edit warrings throughout the years, but nothing happens to them and they keep removing sourced content that goes against their personal preference and adding false information because they refuse to accept facts. In their latest edit warring, they not only removed the box office gross, but also the film's distributors from the infobox (which were sourced) and added a new one that has no source and wasn't the distributor in any of the film's production countries, which they had originally added on July 2, 2024 without a source and without any explanation. Zoolver (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are required to notify User:Earthh of your complaint. I'm also not seeing where you have attempted to discuss this with Earthh, either on the talk pages of the articles you cite, or on their own talk page. Ravenswing 22:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified them on their talk page AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a blackout in my neighbourhood yesterday right after I sent my report, so I couldn't left the message notifying Earthh, but fortunately @AlexBobCharles: did that already (thank you!). And I honestly have no desire to waste my time with an editor who refuses to accept facts no matter how many discussions several people have had with them for over a decade to try and make them understand that they're wrong and should stop removing sourced content and replacing them with false information. I'm quite sure that this report won't go anywhere again as this is not even the first time that this user is reported for the same behavior. Zoolver (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the delayed response to this discussion, my time dedicated to Wikipedia has become increasingly limited, and the summer break kept me away for over a month. I would also like to thank AlexBobCharles for bringing it to my attention, Zoolver's approach has been anything but collaborative, as they did not notify me of this discussion and have avoided all attempts at reconciliation on the article's talk page or my user talk page, ignoring all suggestions proposed by WP:ANI regarding conflict resolution, and resorting to blackout and WP:NOTME to justify these shortcomings. I would like to remind Zoolver that if their contributions are contested, it is essential to discuss and seek consensus rather than persistently edit and engage in edit warring, especially concerning a WP:GA that has been vetted by multiple users. However, I do recognize that the user's perspective appears clearly non-neutral, as they resort to personal attacks against me and unfounded, ridiculous conjectures portraying me as a publicist for Leto. The discussions in which I was involved and that they reference have always concluded with a consensus; I don't understand what the correlation is with this discussion. Moreover, there is evident bias when I am accused of describing the film as a hit, while the version Zoolver is challenging me on describes it as a "box office disappointment."
    As previously mentioned to them, the issues raised have been extensively discussed in the past, both here and during the subsequent GAN. The film's financier and international distributor, Wild Bunch, found it neither sellable nor distributable ("ni vendable ni distribuable") due to its length; at the director's insistence, it received limited theatrical releases only in a few countries (countries where Mr. Nobody was released vs. countries where Van Dormael's next film was released) and lacked promotion [73]. While Zoolver asserts that the film flopped everywhere, sources indicate it is the second highest-grossing Belgian film of the year [74] and one of the top-grossing films ever from Belgium [75]. This, without a doubt, does not suffice to categorize it as a box office success, as explicitly stated in the article even before their contributions, although Box Office Mojo's data is incomplete. For instance, data from Canada (one of the production countries) is missing because the BO Mojo algorithm does not track the Canadian release unless it coincides with the U.S. release (a notable example is C.R.A.Z.Y., one of the highest-grossing films in Canada, which BO Mojo does not track). In all major markets, the film was released only on home video and streaming formats, distributed similarly to films like Beasts of No Nation, Roma, and The Irishman (in the United States, Mr. Nobody was initially available on video on demand and then in four theaters only). Multiple sources suggest that the film found commercial success precisely through these formats [76][77][78][79]. What emerged needs to be clearly reflected on the page, and I will try to edit it in the coming days. In summary, Wikipedia relies on what the sources state, not on Zoolver's viewpoint, and I again encourage them to discuss collaboratively on the talk page.--Earthh (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears stale. Please use the Talk page to discuss the sourcing. Star Mississippi 18:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hezarfen gaming EC system to get around editing restriction

    [edit]

    Hezarfen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan (see user's block log). They are now making hundreds of 2-character edits to their user page (> 350 today), I presume to gain EC status. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not made any changes to any semi-protected article or to extended confirmed protected article in the past or present. The rule here is clear. You cannot judge my experimental changes by looking into a magic ball. There are no restriction rules on the changes I have made.
    Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles, moves a promotional draft to article space, or otherwise edits disruptively or vandalizes articles. >>> I am not a new editor and I do not need to do anything to be autoconfirmed.
    Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles. >>> never made "controversial" or any changes to extended confirmed protected articles. Also so-called "violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan" is nonsense, I have not made any changes to any extended confirmed articles in the past.
    Unfortunately, there is a clique here that tries to block every issue related to Azerbaijan by calling it Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Azerbaijan is a state that exists independently of its relations with Armenia. You cannot block every issue related to Azerbaijan in this way. For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation. Hezarfen (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What was your intention in repeatedly removing the numbers "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" from your user page, one after the other, 349 times, and then stopping just after you obtained EC at 502 total edits? I'd be fascinated to know what you were doing if you weren't gaming permissions. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question. Hezarfen, how do you explain these edits? What were you trying to accomplish? Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed as Not Here for the clear gaming above, but also a side of RGW for For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation.. They're welcome to file an unblock if they have an interest in editing collaboratively. Star Mississippi 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adding slurs to articles (and adding unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs)

    [edit]

    User:2603:8001:D340:5000:4823:15B2:FAE0:4561 (talk) (contrib) adds slurs to blp articles and adds unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs. Was warned a lot - see talk page. Luhanopi (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP for vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328:, may I ask you why 72h? Luhanopi (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Luhanopi, I wanted to send a stronger message than the commonplace 31 hour block handed out to IP editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The /64 has been doing this since September 1. So I'm expanding the block to a rangeblock. This history also demonstrates that it's not just a few-minute problem, giving additional support to the use of a several-day block. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DMacks Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive test editing by Eksilon

    [edit]

    Eksilon has been making disruptive test edits despite multiple warnings across several months. They frequently introduce deliberate factual errors to existing articles and create unfinished (infobox only) articles with historically inaccurate titles in the main space. My theory is that Eksilon is test editing with their own imaginative, fictional ideas, but despite being told six times about their sandbox, they continue to make these edits in the main space and have yet to communicate on their talk page. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and even if one assumes good faith (just test editing, doesn't know better even though they should by now), their disruptive edits are unlikely to stop because communication from them seems unlikely. Yue🌙 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the following should also be deleted because they're not genuine attempts by Eksilon at creating an article (evidenced by them being just copy-and-pasted infoboxes and tables from other articles) and are abandoned test edits cluttering the draft space:
    Yue🌙 20:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I p-blocked them from mainspace in the hopes this gets them to engage on talk pages. Happy for anyone to lift that block if/once it's no longer necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mod removing legitimate requests on Talk Page (nsfw)

    [edit]

    Mod MrOllie is removing my request for someone add a Ejaculating Penis on Wikipedia page: The Human Penis, similar to how the Wikipedia Site for another language does it. He gives No explaination and is abusing Mod Power with this and He even threaten to remove right to edit. DaKocamasra1 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look at the OPs comments (as well as those from the IP addresses used, 95.91.249.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A02:810D:8080:2780:5CD1:D5FD:99FE:F41D (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I don't have anything else to add. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTHERE'd. DaKocamasra1, not MrOllie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was amusing to read the trolls' posts on the human penis talk page. One apparently was arguing that we need a full "gallery" of images to illustrate that article. I pointed them to the Commons where they can find plenty of penis photos. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RealDr.Method and persistent addition of unsourced music genres

    [edit]

    RealDr.Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced genres to articles for music, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked RealDr.Method from article space although they are free to make edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gwapo461 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    [edit]

    Gwapo461 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Creating a blatant hoax at Draft:DXZK-TV (already marked for speedy deletion). May have questionable edits at other articles (see contribs). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This never should have reached ANI, but I'd like to make a comment while I am here.
    From time to time, we find users making hoax broadcast station pages, sometimes in draftspace but usually in userspace. These are blatant hoaxes to people with topic familiarity but not necessarily to general editors. In userspace, these are U5 NOTWEBHOST violations. But when they slot into draftspace, they somehow become way too difficult to remove. Some pages in draftspace, especially obvious hoaxes, never can be encyclopedic topics, but yet we have had Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KFBG-TV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KBQS-TV, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WWWJ-FM, etc. I understand why there is leniency around the Draft namespace, but these are not viable topics for articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a problem here, Mvcg66b3r and Sammi Brie. For CSD, it has to be an obvious hoax, one that anyone could spot. For editors who are knowledgeable about radio stations and broadcasting, I guess you can tell when a draft or main space article is inaccurate. But to the admin patrolling CSD categories, it might just look like a regular radio station article. Of course, if there are sources, they can confirm the existence of the subject but not all drafts are sourced. Is there any way to tell a real radio station from a phony one? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz The easiest way would be to consult lists of authorized broadcast stations. Especially in call sign-titled countries, these can quickly prove or disprove existence for currently operating stations. It might also be possible to infer reliability for some users (especially those that do kids TV hoaxes like these) from prior activity. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Physical threat

    [edit]

    Tejas pratihar is using physical threats to impose his bad edits.[80]. He is also restoring his poor edits that I've reverted with abusive edit summaries, alleging me to be a "jealous Rajput". Also vandalised my userpage [81] Ratnahastin (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume the physical threat is in the Hindi text since I don't see any in the English. Provided the comment isn't so bad that it definitely needs to be wiped from sight and not spoken about it might be helpful to provide a rough translation for the benefit of those why cannot understand the text. That said the racism in their comments is IMO enough for an indef. Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Translate is certainly not 100% accurate but I find it a pretty good indicator most of the time. They render the edit summary as If it is very hot then come and talk to me so that this game does not happen to me. If that machine translation is anywhere close to accurate, I fail to see anything resembling a physical threat. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Cullen, looking through that and the other contributions I can't find any I would consider physical threats. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am using authentic sources but a rajput person change the edit again again its last warning to the person अगर भई जदा गर्मी हो तो मिलके बात करले मेरे पे ये खेल ना होवे "If you're getting too heated, let's meet and talk. I don't want to play this game." Most of the meaning was lost in translation . " मिलके" means 'meet', he is asking me to meet them (likely in real life) because I'm "getting too heated", one can easily guess what he is implying here. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratnahastin, surely you are familiar with the 21st century concept of meeting someone on the internet. Zoom calls. Online chats. Dating sites. Wikipedia talk pages. You have presented very thin soup which is more like a broth as your evidence here, when what we need is a hearty thick stew with plenty of chunks of meat and vegetables. Speaking figuratively, of course. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible Tejas pratihar might be unaware of this discussion even if they had checked out their talk page since while Ratnahastin did notify them [82], this was lost when their talk page which had been moved elsewhere was restored. I've given a new notice just to make sure. While I agree there doesn't seem to be any evidence for a physical threat, vandalising Ratnahastin user page isn't acceptable. More significantly, IMO them continually blaming "Rajput people" [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] for whatever is simply unacceptable even without considering them bringing up "rajput feel jealousy". Personally I feel it's enough for an indef at least until we can be sure they're not going to use someone's caste or race against them in irrelevant ways. But in any case, I've given them a warning and IMO any continuation is definitely enough for an indef. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    @Nil Einne, Cullen328, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Kindly! Check this user's biased edits he is biased in some ways and he is purposely removing content from Gurjar related pages and he is wrongly redirecting these pages.[91][92][93] he also wrongly removed source content from Gurjar BLP related page of Vijay Singh with wrong summary [94][95] and he is probably a Rajput[96] that's why he is doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism. This user and his fellow editors ( Ratnahastin & Gotitbro) also created a trap just to block me they filed too many reports against my account. See these biased reports [97][98] .This user also engaged in edit wars on this page See the first fellow editor of this user Gotitbro[99] wrongly removed sourced content from my new page and redirect. Now this user is trying to conduct an edi war on this page. [100][101][102] how a new created page by myself is a high jack.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas pratihar (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So after I warned you to stop bringing up editor's caste, you thought it a good idea to come here and say "he is probably a Rajput that's why he is doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism"? No one can create a trap for you which forced you to bring up someone's caste. You were free to restrict yourself to discussing their behaviour exclusively rather than saying it's probably because of their caste. Let's be clear, if Ratnahastin or anyone else is causing problems we don't care what their caste is and we barely care why it's the case. The only real reason why someone is doing something matters is it might affect how we approach the issue and what sort of sanction we impose. But someone's caste definitely is not something we would consider. Someone doing something due to casteism is a concern but there needs to be actual evidence of that. Someone's caste isn't evidence that they're engaging in casteism. In fact assuming someone is doing something because of their caste is a form of casteism hence why your behaviour is so problematic. So from where I stand, the only editor who is a problem is you since you keep bringing up the caste of editors edit: and blaming it for their behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said 'bring up someone's alleged caste' above to make it clear I do not know or care what Ratnahastin's caste is. It's irrelevant and a problem whether the claimed caste is self-identified and correct, inconsistent with self-identification or the editor's caste isn't something they've ever commented on. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because different editors have noted your problematic edits and IP socking as evidenced at the SPI which you have yourself thankfully linked, does not mean they are "fellow" editors (implying collusion where there is none). Anyhow, like most WP:CASTE focused editors and disruptors, this user is WP:NOTHERE and never was. The evidenced personal attacks based on ethnic identity only bolster those claims.
    @Cullen328: Since I have had similar violent threats from other caste-based sock networks (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#IP sock threatening to rape and murder) in the language used here [Hindi], that is indeed a very thinly veiled physical threat in local gangsta slang threatening to 'fix' someone up offline. There is a reason this was issued in a local lect so that it flies under the radar, we should not be tolerating this at all. Protestations of innocence are bunkum when you see the deception practiced here to do all this, tell-tale signs of long socking activity not of a novice; while a CU is ultimately to lead to a block here, we should not be waiting for that. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Caste-based disruptors/socks like these are a dime a dozen at the Hindi Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia where they have been wrecking havock for the past few years. Past experience at hiwiki and the pattern of Hinglish edit summaries (along with obvious personal attacks) by the editor here are a particular feature of these networks especially when they are frustrated in their 'efforts'. Gotitbro (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne, I'm not blaming any race (or discriminating) I mistakenly once used the word jealous rajput I will never use this word again I do apologie I also used this word one time only never repeat this again. And kindly see some biased edit of this editor on the pages I have created and they removed all content and redirected my all pages for no actual reasons. Next time I will not bring any one caste or any kind of personal info i really apologize for my mistake. I'm new I have read some policies of Wikipedia. But kindly help me I'm new some one is really removing all content from my pages after this (Ratnahastin) also giving me many edit warnings!. Such warnings he/she gave will cause block for new user this is unfair!.Tejas pratihar (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's good you're starting to recognise the error of your ways but please don't downplay the severity of your historic problems. By my count you brought up editors being Rajput 9 times in edit summaries than and then one time on this very page. You bought up Rajput jealousy/jaelousy in some form in 5 different edit summaries and on this very page made that similar comment about "doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism". This is isn't something you mistakenly once used but instead persistently did. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GoAbbyMallard2024's persistent unsourced edits

    [edit]
    Content dispute that does not rise to ANI level. Star Mississippi 17:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GoAbbyMallard2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making unsourced edits even after they've been warned numerous times (including twice in the same month). They have not responded to any of the warnings at all. Such edits include the likes of [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], and lastly [111]. MissusLunafreya (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MissusLunafreya, those diffs are to routine content disagreements, not to anything requiring administrators to intervene. Work together with the other editor to gain consensus before escalating to this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User condcut:DoctorVadarWho's persistent vandalism

    [edit]
    • [113] on Amanda Aday: adds Fat Yeti as the name of the role of this same actress
    • Persistent disruptive edits changing birthdays with no sources for no discernible legitimate reason here and here.

    User talk:DoctorVadarWho has received at least seven warnings about non-constructive edits and/or vandalism here, here, here, here, here, including two level 4 warnings here and here.

    Need I say more? Kire1975 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked DoctorVadarWho for egregious BLP policy violations and disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain

    [edit]

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

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

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

    Agree. This editor has been asked to provide summaries on the editor's talk page (twice by me), and has been told about the MoS, but has made multiple edits ignoring it despite warnings by other editors, all warnings without any result. This is especially problematic as the editor's edits are often reverted or are otherwise problematic. Although the editor has been editing for only a year, the editor has over 3,000 edits and should have attended to his talk page warnings and stopped disruptive edits by now. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has never replied to any messages on their Talk page, so I have to assume that they have never read them. They probably don't even realize that anyone is sending them messages. I'm not sure how to contact them in another way to get their attention. Nicholas0 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With my talk page warnings I also pinged the editor. I don't think we can assume he's not reading them versus the editor is just ignoring them. Also, the editor hasn't learned from repeated reverts. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Morph

    [edit]

    I have tried the talk page, I pointed out these exact points & an admin protected it. That’s why I’m here. 72.92.249.71 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, but I was the one who was right? Have you looked at the sources? That say nothing other than fans WANT him to be non-binary? Why was MY edit the one reversed? When I was doing the right thing? Then the page protected to continue to spread false info? How is that ok? Not sure where else to ask these questions, the talk page is getting me nowhere as it’s the admin Elli who is protecting the page & reversing my edits, even though once again, the non binary thing is unsubstantiated. 72.92.249.71 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is for behaviour problems of users, not content disputes. Resolution of content disputes is thataway, Mac.

    You might also want to read this page before you dig yourself a hole. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 13:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT, your talk page attempts until just recently consisted of 2 edit requests. Edit requests are not a way to initiate discussion. Instead they are intended to request simple undisputed changes that either already have consensus or where the consensus is obvious that you could justifiable make were it not for the protection. Clearly this isn't the case here since it seems likely the only reason you were using the talk page was because your edit warring was stopped by the semi protection. Your most recent comment is the first time you've at least tried to actually discuss the dispute. So no, you never tried the talk page until now. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious activity from Supyovalk - possible compromised account

    [edit]
    Account is not compromised, rest of this does not require ANI. Star Mississippi 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This account was created in May 2020 and for four years made sporadic edits to articles related to mathematics. Then, a couple months ago, started making rapid "assessments" to articles - and by rapid, I mean 7 or 8 per minute, and over 10,000 total edits in that time. After I noticed this editing pattern, I left a notice on the user's talk page, letting them know that spending less than 10 seconds an article is insufficient (especially for an inexperienced editor) and asking them to stop.

    The edits did stop - but whoever is behind them disappeared completely. It almost looked like gaming extended-confirmed access, but blowing that far past 500 edits doesn't make sense in that respect. However, the sudden shift in editing pattern and disappearance upon being questioned makes me wonder if the account was compromised - something seems off here.

    Spot-checking some of the "assessments" they made, some are probably right, others are wrong. I don't know if a mass revert is possible or feasible in this case (but it'd be easier than manually verifying them all). --Sable232 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    hey, it's supyovalk speaking.
    So to start, no this account is not comprimised, nor I have disappeared or was supsended, just having less edit usage due to not prefering not to rate.
    So a couple months ago I started to go on a spree of rating pages to help the wikipedia. However, I was using the widespread Rater, and using a strategy to swiftly rate pages, eventually replacing that with a Java selenium auto-rater I built.
    But I thought its supplied ORES rating, modified with some bias system I made to ensure it's lowballing, is good enough rating measurement. after weeks of not getting noted and even being thanked for some of the edits, Sable232 left a message explaining it was wrong to rate pages without proper observing of the page's content, and I responded accordingly, noting the problems. (which is weirdly absent now from my talk page. Don't sure what happened to it) Then I just stopped rating pages, due to realizing I wasn't a sufficient rater. And so my editing activity stopped.
    Now for the mass revert, I wouldn't mind if you revert all of them, as I now agree that most of them weren't fair but there's the considering that some them, especially the low-end ones that had a very high ORES confidence, that are indeed fair.
    So here's my offering for a possible mass revert: Revert every rating of mine that is C or higher. that way it will ensure all the very risky and half-hearted assessments are reverted while keeping the low-end pages in a semi-correct to correct state.
    But if you think that's not doable task, I understand if a mass revert is in order. and I will refrain from haphazardly rating Wikipedia pages from now on. Supyovalk (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. While stub articles can be easy to assess, higher levels require more attention. When I assess or reassess articles, I often find easily-resolved issues that I can take care of at the same time. I find it is generally a methodical process, not a fast one. --Sable232 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Poor grammar from Icarus58

    [edit]
    Grammar is not an issue for ANI. SPI is thataway if there's merit to the allegations from the reported user. Star Mississippi 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Icarus58 is another user I have observed on English Wikipedia whose grammar and/or spelling is below the standards expected of contributors:

    • [114] - I convinced you all your assumptions are true, but be careful for my word: If you will violated the rules under the WP:DAB, Manual of Styles in Linking, Do's and Don'ts in Redirects and other main articles and piping policy; you will report from the interventions against vandalism if you continue to remove the specific wikilinks without any excuses. Any subsequent edits (as well as years in Philippine Television articles) will reverted manually. Thank you.
    • [115] - So, please stop and you'll receive a warning because those removal specific wikilinks are not purpose of the streamline of readers and it does not common sense.
    • [116] - Possible suck puppet from AaronFresco.
    • [117] - However, Crising is only Philippine name from PAG-ASA, it seems that should be delete as no longer cheap redirects, altough they are same designation but different classification from PAG-ASA and JTWC.
    • [118] - Unfortunately, some tropical cyclone articles in typhoon names are considered as repeatable in year descriptions to make it easier find (especially the main topic) and should be keep it neutral. In general terms, those year descriptions are common senses and not be superfluous. As you did it at Typhoon Ewiniar (2024) by using scripts, which is already reverted earlier; but you need to follow the wiki guidelines as neutral point of view. Hope you'll understand for my reasons to know what is right and wrong actions.

    Based on the highlighted text demonstrating grammatical errors, I firmly believe that Icarus58's grasp of the English language is not good enough to edit English Wikipedia. Thoughts? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That grammar is quite subpar, but I think it's only a problem if Icarus58 contributes significant chunks to articles and/or routinely interacts with newer editors, who might be confused by Icarus58's explanations or arguments. WADroughtOfVowelsP 15:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible suck puppet from AaronFresco. Aaand has Icarus got anything to prove that? SPI is a thing, WP:ASPERSIONS, and all that. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A Case for retrial on the RC Majumdar article

    [edit]
    Content dispute, please work towards a consensus at Talk:R. C. Majumdar, not here, with recourse to dispute resolution procedures if discussion stalls. There appears to have been minimal discussion on said talk page thus far, with comments only from Normstahlie, articulating a perspective that appears to somewhat distinct from both that of the OP of this thread and Ratnahastin, the main subject of this complaint. Behavioral concerns relating to this dispute have already been raised in the section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NOTHERE_editor and can continue there; there's no reason to have a separate parallel discussion at ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the page for the Indian Historian RC Majumdar, the third line reads that RC Majumdar promoted Hindu Nationalist communal interpretation of history. The overwhelming consensus among academics such as Romilla Thapar is that he was NOT a communal historian but part of the Nationalist school of historiography. I had the sources cited for the same claim but were replaced multple time with sources of less relevance and credibility by Ratnahastin (the wikipedia user) on 21 September 2024 it was put that RC Majumdar was a nationalist historiographer by Normstahlie but was reverted back by Someguywhosbored and extension protection added by Daniel Case. I did try to build consensus with Ratnahastin via talk that we add a legacy section which will allow both his critics and appreciaters view to be heard but he refused to engage with me on any level. Wikipedia is the first thing which pops up when one searches RC Majumdar and by calling Him a Hindu Nationalist it is tarnishing his legacy, THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF ACADEMICS FROM ALL SCHOOLS OF HISTORY believe that he was NOT promoting Hindu NAtionalist views, their authority on it has been ignored for an ideological few. Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Uncivil comments by AssieBassie000

    [edit]

    This AssieBassie000 (talk · contribs) was recently reported for adding unsourced information but the thread was archived with no further action. Now they are using uncivil edit summaries. See this [119] diff. --Jetstreamer Talk 15:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, the user keeps making unsourced edits [120]. Anybody taking this seriously?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is quite uncivil, but I am more concerned by the user's lack of edit summaries even on major edits(!) and the unsourced edits.
    (As a side note, I think you should add more diffs to your reports, as only one diff per claim makes it difficult to evaluate whether these are chronic problems.) WADroughtOfVowelsP 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The uncivil edit summary is block worthy, and the unsourced edits and lack of communication is also concerning. I'm not sure this rises to the level of an indefinite block though. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also of note that I previously didn't mention:
    WADroughtOfVowelsP 16:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to block them for a week, and make it clear if problems continue they will be blocked indefinitely. But I'll wait for more opinions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, PhilKnight. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have now blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PhilKnight: I'm fairly certain they're a sock of User:Stricklunk880 as their editing pattern is identical. This is a long term airport disrupting sock puppeet editor I believe. See interaction history. Changing of small tagging (that shouldn't be there in the first place), overlinking and deleting native names from the article bodies. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirms the sock puppetry. Indefinite block now. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. And gives me more confidence to block these accounts when I see them now. There are a few sock accounts that persistently disrupt airport articles. Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 89.125.129.68

    [edit]
    IP has been blocked. Star Mississippi 21:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    89.125.129.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. IP was previously blocked on July 28th for a month, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1 (content added not in pre-existing source), 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, again

    [edit]
    Reported IP & underlying 64 have been blocked. Star Mississippi 21:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, /64 was previously blocked on August 31st for 72h, then for 2 weeks on September 7th as a result of this previous ANI report, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Apparent phishing by Zayn Hesham

    [edit]
    INDEFFED
    Indeffed by Bbb23. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All of User:Zayn Hesham's edits are requests on random users' talk pages (including mine) ostensibly to ask for help but then asking for their email addresses. Looks phishy. Largoplazo (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another notable aspect about them is that they're the exact same. I do agree that they look phishy (and fishy). WADroughtOfVowelsP 09:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zayn Hesham has Wikipedia email enabled, so there's not even any need for them to ask for others' email addresses. I've explained this on their page. Bishonen | tålk 09:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    By xwiki tracing, I'll note that User:زين هشام is another account of theirs, and wikidata admins who look at the history of wikidata:Q119790860 might be able to find an IP that editor was also using for self-promotion. DMacks (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment doesn't bode well. I'm trying to figure out of it rises to the level of a personal attack or not. Either way it doesn't suggest they'll be a productive member of the community. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering they said they’re here to promote, I’d advise WP:NOTHERE be invoked. I find this to also be supported by what they were trying to do with their user page, on their old account that DMacks sniffed up. ([121]) with a little information and not too much Sounds to me like they know the harm that can occur on having an article on WP:YOURSELF, and would whitewash. That’s WP:OWN trouble waiting to happen. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NPA: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. I think they were trying to disparage you (say you were of little worth) with I don't see you and you had the honor of talking to me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes, I see that on Arabic Wikipedia, under both accounts the user page content has been removed and warnings about inappropriate user page use appear on their talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP persistantly readding unsourced material at Battle of Trafalgar

    [edit]

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

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

    User:Vijay bhaskara reddy k - Copyvio

    [edit]

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

    I actually remove some of the copyvio he/she made on Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Temple, Nellore where he/she basically copy paste the content and I also notice he/she made a close paraphrasing in some of article he/she made, (i didn't revdel as they Earwig only show around 40%) and just copyedit it. I was considering reporting but it think it is WP:BITEY. But I did not know that the photos were copyrighted lol. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one here, Kothakodur Beach was tag for CSD for G11 and by plugging this in Earwig it also is a copyvio of this Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Miminity, this is a tangent but how on Earth did you get a report from Earwig? I used to use it but haven't been able to get a report since early 2024 because it is always over its limit. I'm shocked you were able to use this tool and get any information back. What's your secret? What time of day did you use it? Thanks for any information. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: I often use it like 8-10 UTC (which basically evening here) but sometimes I use the "use links in the page" option. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, if you uncheck the "use search engine" button, you'll be able to get it to run, since the limit only applies to google searches. They're working on making the tool log-in required, which should help with running through all our search engine credits. -- asilvering (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested block at commons c:COM:ANB#Vijay bhaskara reddy k. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Blocked on Commons for uploading copyright violations after warning. Yann (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Today they recreated Sri Chamundeswari Ammavari Temple Gangapatnam, Swarnala Cheruvu Nellore, Kanigiri Reservoir Buchireddypalem (original at Kanigiri Reservior Buchireddypalem), Penna Barrage Nellore (original at Penna Barage Nellore) and Survepalli Reservoir (original at Sarvepalli Reservior), all previously created by User:Perungulathore, blocked 4 days ago, and articles mass deleted. A quick checkuser for block evasion seems appropriate, especially as User:Perungulathore admitted paid COI at their user talk: "I was build up the pages belongs to Tourism places of concern area on behalf of the Government."Wikishovel (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment another copyvio on Kanigiri Reservoir Buchireddypalem copied from here. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out the whole article is copied from that URL and an abstract from a predatory journal: db-g12. Wikishovel (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated copyvio. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    [edit]
    Reporter has been blocked for DE. There is no merit to their sock allegations about these established editors. Star Mississippi 01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Oblivy, Russ Woodroofe and personal attacks on create new Page s from my account. Now it can be see that both the users, @Oblivy, @Russ Woodroofe are being targeted this page will be created from my account. Sockpuppet investigations can be clearly seen in the previous AFD how they like to target and vote for delete pages.here These two accounts are handled by the same user on different devices, of their account edits here, here are checked, they are just constantly targeting one pages. Monophile 💬 02:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I right in saying that you have started an SPI about these users, and one other, because they have voted in an AfD to delete an article you want kept? Where is this personal attack and what evidence can you provide for what you are reporting? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Monophile created a malformed SPI, which I've deleted, and added a quick checkuser request at SPI, which I've reverted. I've blocked them for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Bbb23 for sorting this out while I was away-from-keyboard. Here's a bit of context:
    • recreation of deleted page (nom'd by me) [122]
    • AfD of a newly-created page (nom'd by not-my-sock) [123]
    The AfD comments struck me at the time as a hair's-breadth away from violating WP:NPA but I didn't want to end up here if it could be avoided. Hopefully the block will give them a chance to reconsider their editing approach. Oblivy (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not notify Russ Woodroofe about this discussion. I have done that this time, but if ever you launch another discussion about another editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. NebY (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Monophile part of the NasirRanjhyWala drawer? Not as focused on that one person's article, but I see enough to ask for CU to consider taking a look (not posting that evidence here). DMacks (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the accounts in that case are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to interpret the original post, I think that Monophile (talk · contribs) is making accusations of harassment. I will disclose that per WP:HA#NO, I did examine Monophile's contributions for policy violations. I had watchlisted Tushar Palve during the recent deletion discussion. Monophile requested refund to draft of that article [124][125] (granted by Explicit with a strong suggestion to run through AfC), and subsequently moved the minimally-edited page back to mainspace, where it was speedily G4 deleted [126]. The editing pattern gave me pause, and left me with questions on both the judgement and grasp of policy and guidelines of this fairly new editor. I saw a similar Mumbai physician of similarly questionable notability, again with lots of references but little substance, and (after a WP:BEFORE) nominated for deletion. I do not think that this constitutes harassment, and do not see anything from Oblivy that could even remotely be harassment. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like @Russ Woodroofe I watchlisted Tushar Palve and @Monophile’s talk page because of the prior AfD and our interactions. That's how I saw the recreation/deletion of Tushar Palve yesterday, as well as the nomination of Dhiraj Sonawane for deletion. Given my prior interactions with Monophile I could have waited before piling on -- while I don't think there was anything wrong with the substance or tone, the pace probably added to their frustration. This does look like inexperienced editor trying to create meaningful pages, but growth has to happen. That means considering what other editors say rather than lashing out. Editing existing pages may be a more promising path, as deletion discussions IMHO are not a model environment for new editors to learn about either policies and guidelines or civility. Oblivy (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    [edit]

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

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

    IP hopper (re-)introducing bad copy-edits and WP:NOTSEEALSO bloat to CTOPICS

    [edit]
    Drmies has imposed a range block that includes the only IP who's edited recently. There's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has been warned countless times and generally does not appear to respond to talk page suggestions whatsoever. They are edit warring as can immediately be seen from their selfsame additions to Radical right (United States). The IPs also never use edit summaries.

    Here are my own recent finds:

    Not stale, potentially worth blocking

    Stale

    Apparently, this case has an even more expansive history than I thought; and there have even been some ineffectual bans the IPs are now evading:[127]

    From a user talk page
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



    Located in Pittsford, outside of Rochester, New York. Beginning in January 2019:

    Also, apparently unrelated, in Montreal:

    Conclusion) Recurrent interests of the apparent LTA case include racism of all varieties, right-wing politics, but also e.g. peculiar articles like the Pre-Adamite and British Israelism ones. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Checkuser needed}}! A CU should really check the last few stale IPs as well to exclude that this is additionally a case of edit warring qua WP:LOUTSOCK across multiple articles. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A CheckUser will not connect IPs to named accounts for privacy reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23. Well, but if I'm not mistaken, they can still block such accounts on their own without telling anybody here. Right? In that case, please restore the template/point some unnamed CU to this case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't need a CU to block based on WP:DUCK – robertsky (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not IPs can be blocked, it seems like you are asking a Checkuser to check a lot of stale accounts which I think they will see as a lot of work for not much payoff. Why did you not file this at SPI, why did you come to ANI? SPI is severely backlogged right now, there are lots of open reports from the summer that still have yet to be investigated and if there isn't urgent vandalism, I don't see this sock hunt as attracting their attention away from more compact and polished reports that have been filed. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz. Yeah, no, it's unlikely that this is a case of WP:LOUTSOCK anyway. The IPs have thousands of contributions if you add up/extrapolate.
    I just didn't/don't know what best to do in such a situation. Maybe open an official WP:LTA case filed under the oldest known IP? Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There appear to be a lot more implicated IPs as far as I can tell. But this should be enough to demonstrate that there might be some serious LTA going on. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a wide range of IPs, and it has been going on for I don't even remember how long - I can say that at least a year or more, probably longer. Their edits are essentially of two varieties: (1) gross expansion of "see also" lists (like way over the top inclusions) and (2) copyediting to a more pedestrian wording (unnecessary conjunctions, overworded clauses, and similar) that does not improve article quality. They will ignore all forms of attempted communication, whether that's article talk, edit summary, or user talk notices. So LTA would be putting it mildly, IMO. It's been going on so long, I'm essentially numb to it at this point. Some of the IPs have received blocks, and that has usually occurred during periods of significant, repetitive disruption. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the bilateral relations troll (previous discussion). Drmies, can you confirm? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thewikizoomer Bludgeoning

    [edit]

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

    Comment: It's not bludgeoning.
    I never said a single point again and again. My discussion lead to clearing misunderstanding that took place.
    Most importantly, my inputs may have also made it clear to users unfamiliar with the subject that they are different companies.
    And also my inputs were civil, reasonable, and much needed for reaching consensus. The discussions available at Afds are self explanatory to this.
    Also the user @Scope creep may note "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." as mentioned in WP:BLUD.
    If anything is undesirable here, that is trying to create hostility by using words such as "one more comment and I'll take you to WP:ANI" like an involved user said here which doesn't appear to be a comment to be made on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
    It's unreasonable to says it is bludgeoning. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I can't help it if there are no the merge proposal lead nowhere due to lack of participation. I can't be blamed for that. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're literally aggressively responding to every single comment, sometimes multiple times. These links read like you're clearly trying to dominate the conversation per WP:BLUDGEON. Responding to people with things like "so according to me it doesn't make sense" and "it's still unfair" are not helpful or substantive. Make all your points and leave others to make theirs and let the closer evaluate consensus. An ANI warning was fair at this point, though I don't think action needs to be taken if you actually back off and quit trying to be the grand inquisitor of this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent was never to be aggressive or dominate, the intent was to clear misunderstandings and nothing else as most users may not be aware of how Indian Power Sector is structured or work, so yeah, let us let the closer evaluate the consensus. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I find Thewikizoomer's behaviour to be very problematic, for example they responded to scope_creep's comments with the exact same comment beginning with "Oppose merge all" in bold despite them already voting [128] Constant badgering[129][130][131][132]. Accusing scope_creep[133] of personally attacking them when there was nothing in their reply that could be considered as such [134].Their recent edits where they moved Pune airport to Jagadguru Sant Tukaram Maharaj Airport[135], as well as renaming mentions of it on different articles [136][137][138][139][140][141], in spite of the fact it is not the official name yet, let a common one[142]. Their mass merging proposals of NTPC building articles are problematic as well. [143][144] Especially when the rationale for it is seemingly lacking in any actual policy. "Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have separate article, All plants are owned by one company". They have nominated articles[145][146] created by @CharlieMehta: who voted oppose on the original Afd, in their reply to Thewikizoomer they said[147]:"I have noticed your actions on the NTPC Power Plant pages I created as per WP:NBUILDING rule. This seems to be driven by a sense of vengeance". Since this report was filed, they have been mass welcoming new users despite some of those users having zero edits[148][149][150][151], I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to bury their edit history in order to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to state that Thewikizoomer is aware of CT IPA. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcoming this user with an obvious inappropriate name and thanking them for their non-existent contributions...then reporting them to UAA a mere minute later shows we may have a WP:CIR case here. Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome new users when I have time to do so. Also being a user with over 5000 edits, it would be very dumb of me to think that this welcoming of users will "bury" my edit history. The welcoming of users is done as my everyday interest and nothing else.
    To other mentions, I think I've already responded in respective replies. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thewikizoomer: You haven't addressed any of the issues that have been pointed out by me and MrSchimpf. You say that "I welcome new users when I have time to do so" but this does not address why you welcomed users that have made zero edits to this site. As WP:WELCOMING clearly states "welcome new users who have already made constructive edits". Starting welcoming new users right after proposing merger of over 30 articles [152][153] does give an impression of burying edit history.
    You haven't explained why you moved Pune airport to Jagadguru Sant Tukaram Maharaj Airport , when no such name change has occurred yet[154]. And even if the name change occurred, it would still be disruptive to move that page, see WP:OFFICIALNAME.
    How do you explain your blanket merge proposals of NTPC power station articles[155], especially when you have proposed multiple of them to be merged within a single minute [156][157][158]. I don't think that short window of time is enough for you to decide whether an article should be merged or not. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed all of them and before-hand and nominated for merger. I'm not aware of WP:WELCOMING, now I am. Pune airport name change did occur and citations can be found too in the article, I added more than 1 citation regarding name change. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pure disinformation. No name change has occurred so far. Which source are you talking about? Ratnahastin (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pure disinformation? This and this. Cited in the article. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source noted "The decision was taken at a state cabinet meeting, an official said, adding the proposal will be sent to the Centre."[159] The fact you have misinterpreted and misrepresented these sources to portray an approval of a proposal as an actual rename serves as a testament to your WP:CIR issues. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal was accepted by MOS for Civil Aviation. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me where the central government approved the name. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Any issues other than WP:BLUD, use appropriate forum. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:100julian

    [edit]
    Already reported them to AIV, no need for this thread. Remsense ‥ 论 00:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User seems to be running an automated script to replace all occurrences of "i.e." by "that is" on many articles in rapid succession. Has been warned repeatedly, needs swift blocking. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Cullen328 has removed TPA. Star Mississippi 01:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TPA

    [edit]

    Actually, could someone remove their TPA if deemed necessary? They're going a bit crazy there. Remsense ‥ 论 00:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 176.84.121.244, again

    [edit]
    Cullen328 gives them 3 months to reflect on their life decisions before rejoining. (non-admin closure) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    176.84.121.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings, and behaviour continued after a 72h block on September 8th. See previous ANI report. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor has been adding unsourced content for a month and every one of their edits has been reverted. A 72 hour block was ineffective, so, I blocked for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Floppy disks are cool

    [edit]
    Was a sock, blocked almost instantly. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    is obviously a sock of someone, but are they actually who they claim to be on their userpage? The last report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zsfgseg/Archive was 7 years ago. Can someone take a look? Thanks. C F A 💬 03:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ... Aannnd blocked just as I posted this. C F A 💬 03:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All known accounts are very  Stale, so Checkuser won't be any help. Behaviorally, yeah that's probably him. The pattern matches; some people just have too much time on their hands. I'll file a pro forma SPI to get it logged in case this it can be useful for a future CU. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done The WordsmithTalk to me 03:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Off-wiki harassment from article's subject

    [edit]

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

    [160]

    [161]

    [162]

    [163]

    Since adding the content staff from the charity have contacted me via social media demanding my full name and address and when I refused to provide them with this information gangs of Police officers have been showing up at my house banging on my door in the middle of the night waking up the whole street and when they didn't get a response they went to my sick elderly parent's house and woke them up too. I believe the article's subject is weaponising the Online Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary. What steps can be taken to de-escalate this matter while preserving the article's independense and objectivity? What legal rights do I have as a content creator on this platform?𝔓420°𝔓Holla 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I'll bite: since you have no personal information on your user page, how is it the charity could have possibly found you on social media? How would the police be coming to your door? As far as "weaponising" the Online Safety act goes, the information about the inquiry appears not merely to be in the article, but dominates it. The article's "independence" and objectivity does not now seem to be at stake. As far as what dealings you and your family might have with UK law enforcement, that's not part of Wikipedia's remit, nor does the WMF have any authority over that. Ravenswing 10:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any number of ways, it's a small country where everyone knows everyone.
    In terms of due weight. I mean, it's difficult to balance the POV when the secondary coverage of the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since with the possible exception of election accessibility. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 10:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the situation is precisely as you claim (@Headhitter: have you had a similar experience?), foundation:Legal:Community Health Legal Defense Program may be of use. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are underestimating how much information a dedicated person can find about a person online. One photo can compromise location, one shared username(or even email) could expose private accounts, email and some money is all that is necessary to reveal personal information collected by data brokers. I deliberately performed a clean start for this reason, 'ca' is basically unsearchable. Ca talk to me! 11:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Succinctly, see https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/support-and-safety/dealing-with-online-harassment-communication-best-practices/what-kind-of-support-can-the-wikimedia-foundation-offer
    Generally on Wikipedia here, as long as there is no legal threats on the platform, there is nothing much we can do. Even if there is, it would likely result in a block on that account making the threat. As for your offline personality being known, there's nothing much we can do. You may have to seek legal advice on your own. – robertsky (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. As a Brit myself, I am unconvinced by "it's a small country where everyone knows everyone." I am certainly not on friendly terms with every single one of the other 69 million people on these isles. Regardless, about the article - that section dominating an article for a 156-year old charity is massively WP:UNDUE and needs to get trimmed significantly. It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead either. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. By a Brit who actually lives in Coventry. Narky Blert (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And thirded. I have never seen the UK described like that, except by very ignorant people from other countries who were disappointed that I didn't know Prince Charles (as he then was) personally. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; I couldn't even tell you if banging on my door in the middle of the night was waking up the whole street. Checking the article's history, I find I have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry is not the whole story; GDX420 also deleted much positive content.[164] Expostulating about the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since (above, albeit slightly qualified) and an edit summary about Alton Towers for nonces[165] adds a flavour of WP:RGW. NebY (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly it seems like GDX420 is determined to just turn the entire article into a hit piece against the RNIB, and their edit history does show that perhaps they're a little too obsessed with doing so. Does the scandal have a place, yes it does. Does it deserve to override everything else and even delete general information from the lead, absolutely not. I'd suggest GDX420 is outright blocked from the page and everyone else gets involved in resetting it and rebalancing the article and removing undue. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Whether or not off-wiki events have occurred as described, GDX420's description of their stance – "I believe the article's subject is weaponising the Online Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary" – and edit summaries such as Anyone who disagrees is complicit with child abuse.[166] don't indicate someone who can edit the article collaboratively and in accord with WP:NPOV. NebY (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen that particular edit-summary and on that alone I have partially blocked GDX420 from the article. If I'd seen it at the time, that block might well have been site-wide. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite I think topic banning GDX420 from attempting to investigate or fix COI editing would be a reasonable step here, since a lot of the disruption seems to stem from their belief that this article is being edited by COI editors. They have had issues with lacking the competence to properly deal with paid editing in the past, resulting in two previous ANI threads [167] [168] and their previous block. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Positive content written in an unencyclopaedic tone and sourced to the organisation's website? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this content that was removed unencyclopaedic and inappropriately sourced? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1914, the organisation relocated to larger premises in Great Portland Street and changed its name to The National Institute for the Blind, or NIB, to reflect its status as a national body involved in all aspects of the welfare of blind people.[1] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Royal National Institute of Blind People 1868". Science Museum Group. London. Retrieved 11 August 2024.

    User:MuhammadNoorAlHasimi: Possible compromised account

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) Blocked by Black Kite as compromised account and vandalism. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Iv reported to AIV as a possible compromised account LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've blocked it indefinitely with a note in the block log. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Saynotozionism12345 - WP:NOTHERE new editor

    [edit]
    BLOCK INDEF, TPA REVOKED
    (non-admin closure) Indef blocked, TPA revoked. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    They're compiling a list of users to harass. They gotta go. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I reported it for UAA and tagging the userpage for CSD Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be time to remove talk page access too. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TPA removal would likely be wise Babysharkboss2!! (No Life 'Til Leather) 13:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging the blocking admin. @Zzuuzz:. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TPA have been REVOKED Babysharkboss2!! (No Life 'Til Leather) 13:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruption by CrashLandingNew

    [edit]

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

    Yesterday, he changed the text of an article by misrepresentation the source and used a misleading edit summary.[169]

    Today, he went to edit war with me by falsifying my edits as "vandalism" contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[170] Evidently he is falsely terming productive edits as "vandalism" for weeks now. [171] ZDX (User) | (Contact) 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Impru20 and icons

    [edit]

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

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

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

    I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency How could you possibly think this action would be seen as anything other than a provocative edit that sends a clear "fuck you" message to the other editor? Since you took this action in the middle of a discussion, how exactly are you going to argue that it was not disruptive? The implication that your actions were perfectly innocent and in good faith, and Impru's reaction unpredictable and unreasonable, is offensively disingenuous. Your second message on Impru's talkpage was to accuse them of WP:OWN.
    You may have a good point here about accessibility issues, but from a behavioral standpoint, it's not Impru's behavior that I find concerning. Why did you not start a discussion at the article talkpage? Why did you not seek broader consensus? Why did you decide to edit war, ignore Impru's concerns, and then open an ANI report? Being right on content doesn't excuse poor behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Grandpallama in almost all respects. This is a classic example of WP dispute generation, which makes me sad. The only points I would add to his review are:
    • They're both edit-warring using JWB. I assume, like AWB, that this could theoretically be grounds for removing JWB from both of their toolbelts? I'm not necessarily advocating for that, so much as trying to emphasize to both that they should not continue down this path.
    • While I do agree that WMSR is "more" responsible for this conflict, I think Impru20 could have helped by not responding to minor hostility with more hostility, and not responded to a misues of JWB with a misuse of JWB.
    • I don't suppose that the two editors could recognize they both acted imperfectly, that they're both long term experienced good faith editors, and just agree to start all over again? A do-over? A calm, respectful (friendly would be great, but probably asking too much - unless they want to give me a pleasant surprise) discussion to truly understand each other, if necessary followed by a 3rd opinion or other dispute resolution method?
    Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Accessibility alone does not justify such a behaviour, but even then: I was not even against solving those issues! You will be able to check that from my talk page discussion, in which I actually proposed WMSR compromise solutions that maintained both the icons and achieved accessibility. They could have contested them, but they basically refused to even discuss them, instead resorting to mass-editing and to attack me on my user talk page. Yeah, I ended up warning WMSR of WP:BOOMERANG along with a profound sense of frustration after they had suggested bringing this to ANI ([173]).
    The issue here is that WMSR was openly provocative and aggressive from the very beginning. They have never attempted to seek a compromise despite multiple requests, they never explained why the compromise solution that I proposed was unacceptable (spoiler: it wasn't) and their only course of action was to 1) adopt an aggressive behaviour in my talk page with outright attacks (their first reply to my was to accuse me of WP:OWNing just because I disagreed with their initial few edits), 2) to keep linking random wiki policies in an exercise of wikilawyering, 3) once these two failed, to resort to massively edit hundreds of articles despite being well aware that these edits would be contested (since this came when the discussion had started and was well underday), and 4) to threaten me with bringing this to ANI should I did not accept their edits. Heck, their initial response to my initial complaint to their massive edits was to tell me that "this is going nowhere, so I have made hundreds of edits and if you disagree with them just seek recourse elsewhere" (hinting at admin intervention at [174], then more openly at [175]). So you have a content dispute and, instead of trying to solve it amicably, you just attempt to intimidate the other user and force admin intervention even when ANI is not for such kind of disputes?
    I acknowledge that I did not take the OWN accusation well. That was basically WMSR's second comment in the discussion and came after I inquired them on their reasoning for their edits. I cannot see how on Earth this kind of behaviour could be seen as any other than disruptive from that point onwards, but particularly from the moment that WMSR disengaged from the discussion to mass-edit hundreds of articles (which I then reverted back to their original versions).
    The "I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency" claim is (sorry) an absurd claim. WMSR should know that making literally hundreds of edits at once while a discussion is ongoing is not a good-faith course of action. Plus, WMSR just did this again less than 24 hours ago, after having left the discussion for two weeks and leaving my last comment unanswered (which was basically the specific, last proposal for a compromise solution). How can anyone even think of this being done innocently and thinking that this would "asuage" any concern?
    Btw, my last edits on all of those articles (which involved reverting WMSR second provocative mass-editing) did actually implement accessibility according to WP:ACCESS (or, at the very least, the best I could do it), by taking the advantage of the reverting to implement the compromise solution that they just refused to even address in my talk page. I seriously don't understand what their motives are here, but it's fairly obvious that WP:BOOMERANG applies here. Impru20talk 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may not resolve the JWB misuse during the edit war, but I personally believe that WMSR is very much experiencing a WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps this conversation here is enough to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Conyo14 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Oh, and on Floquenbeam's remarks: I don't want to use JWB to resolve the dispute. I only had to in this case because that was the only mean of undoing such massive changes so swiftly. I am more than willing to voluntarily refrain from using it in this dispute. Even then, that should not hide that WMSR has used it in a provocative and aggressive way twice, both of them without previous notice and under threats of ANI intervention if those edits were contested (as I linked above; threats that have ultimately materialized today), so it's probably them who should commit themselves to stop doing this. Impru20talk 20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess that's a "no". Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a "yes" (on my part) to not use JWB again in this dispute, and a "no" in allowing WMSR free use of it as if nothing had happened, seeing how that could spark issues in further situations in which they come across content disputes. Using JWB to "solve" a content dispute by editing hundreds of articles so that the issue seems "locked" by making it seemingly impossible for the other part to restore them manually, then threaten the other part to refrain from using JWB to revert them or else they will be brought to ANI, is not how JWB is intended to be used. Not saying that I will press for that (on my part, I just find this highly disruptive and frustrating). Impru20talk 20:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we got your point now. You may want to take some time away from this. WMSR may receive a WP:TROUT for his actions here. If he continues you may want to return and justice will be swiftly given. Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I am dropping the stick here, thank you. Impru20talk 20:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Infoboxes are under discretionary sanctions. I alerted both editors. I was going to remove their access to AWB/JWB, too, but it looks like the drama has died down, even if only slightly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, so are election results now, right? I know almost nothing about that recent historical elections arbcom case, but is there any reason to believe one of these two editors is involved in (hang on while I look up the term used in the case) "Election Twitter"? Results of historical national and sub-national elections are now a contentious topic. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Broadcastwitnessnews92 competence issues

    [edit]

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

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

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

    I'll block them if they keep editing without responding. I've left one final message on their talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked (by Discospinster) Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024 admin help needed

    [edit]

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

    @Awesome Aasim ECR is a bright-line rule in ARBPIA, so I don't think you'd be out of line collapsing/removing the comment entirely - just make sure it's applied universally. IPs and non-XC editors aren't allowed to contribute anything in the area besides edit requests, so votes on a move aren't allowed. The Kip (contribs) 22:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that is what I thought. But I already struck that comment out. It wouldn't hurt to collapse the replies to the ECR violating comment? Awesome Aasim 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another kind-of related thing: There appear to be several derailments in the RM. Can those be collapsed? Thanks. Awesome Aasim 23:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1247579204"