Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Repeated WP:PA Violations by IP 47.69.66.57 (and prior IP addresses)

The IP (and previous IP addresses operated by the same individual) has made repeated personal attacks targetting me.

They have alleged that I am not... mentally sound: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" [1]

They claimed that a B-Class article I edit often, SpaceX Super Heavy, is my "favorite playground" [2][3]

Multiple claims of attempting to mislead others: "And you still either don't understand or try to mislead" [4]

"Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts" [5]

"Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals" [6]

"neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others" [7]

They accuse everyone they disagree with of WP:OR, despite the disputed content often being well sourced. And anyone who confronts them is a WP:PA violator: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

They have decided that I am a "know-it-all" editing only for the "statisfaction" to be the one "to have discovered a tiny new fact". [15]

They have declared their intention to "form a coalition" to combat me. [16]

IMO, it is clear that they are not here to improve Wikipedia, editing only to harrass more experienced editors.

I reported their behaviour before, but no action was taken.[17] Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A link to the archive of the previous report (with the responses): link. – 2804:F1...A2:6879 (::/32) (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hopping in here as I've also seen this person repeatedly hounding Redacted II in several discussions. It's clear this user is not interested in constructive editing. Ergzay (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They have continued, now as IP 47.69.68.17.

They aren't here to improve the encyclopedia. They're here to troll. Redacted II (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Now 47.69.168.221. Behaviour has continued. Redacted II (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like if we're going to stop this IP editor, then we need to block the 47.69.0.0/16 range. I had a look at the contribs page for that /16 range and surprisingly there's little to no activity from other editors on there in the past month, besides this nuisance harassing IP of course. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So far, I've found one edit not from the discussed user in the last year. Redacted II (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To quote WP:PA:

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, ... disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

The first statement: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" satisfies this definition. Redacted II (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This person clearly has a dynamic IP address, so if disruption continues (hopefully not), we are going to need a rangeblock. I've reminded this editor here, despite this constant behavior, I hope that this might help them improve. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was before I found out that this has been going on since July this year. I might also want to point out this interesting case, where this editor randomly takes it to another user's talk page to discuss Redacted II, just because the said user changed the infobox and lede name here. This is obviously not helpful, but I still have hope that my reminder above will help this editor improve. User3749 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

They have been warned quite often before. It didn't change anything.

The IP range is very inactive when this user is ignored. There have been three edits this year that I'm not 100% certain were made by the Wikihounder. Redacted II (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown POV pushing editing pattern

SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) has been consistently POV pushing against Imran Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), figures in Pakistan’s political crisis. I reported them on this noticeboard recently, and I hoped that the issue would be resolved after my report, but I am reporting them again as their WP:CPUSH behavior pattern has persisted, primarily against Imran Khan, warranting a topic ban.

POV pushing on Imran Khan BLP
On the Imran Khan BLP, Sheriff has added exclusively negative criticism about Khan, including citing an opinion piece instead of reliable inline citations and following a one-sided narrative. In this discussion, they argued that one sexual harassment allegation should have an independent section, followed by accusing both me and the user who added the section (WikiEnthusiast1001) of POV pushing in favor of PTI because we advocated for a merge into another section to fit the article's structure.

Following a somewhat resolution to the dispute, they added a large section about Khan's comments on rape and allegations of victim-blaming but was entirely one-sided, failing to mention other viewpoints or any context, essentially only covering the negatives which forced me and another user to step in and add context [1] [2]. Even worse, Sheriff already knows that Khan's comments on rape were contested as out of context, as they edited on a page talking about the allegations but did not add the other viewpoint.

Previously, they put false information on Imran Khan’s BLP article that was not supported by any of the 3 citations they gave and citation bombed to make it seem like a proper piece of information. I asked them twice on why they did this in the talk page, but they only responded when Saqib intervened in this discussion.

Even more concerning, they cited an opinion piece for 2 paragraphs of information on Imran Khan's page without even mentioning it was an opinion piece. They also used that one opinion piece as a citation for two paragraphs about contentious information on an already contentious protected BLP, without inline citations or even a mention of the opinion piece or its authors which was discussed here. Sheriff further made bad faith accusations towards me when I explained it was necessary to mention it is an opinion piece. They were extremely reluctant to revoke the opinion piece.

In response to the lengthy negative opinion piece Sheriff added, I balanced it with a short paragraph summarizing three positive opinion pieces [3]. However, even after this, instead of allowing for balance, Sheriff selectively extracted negative points from these generally positive pieces and showed further compulsion to add only negative content. [4] Sheriff has also added imbalanced criticism of Imran Khan's time in office, which other users including me have had to correct.

Khan is a controversial figure in Pakistani politics and his BLP is a high-priority and a GA nomination which is why these editing patterns are even more concerning. Sheriff argues that I have added 'promotional content' and they are balancing that, but as seen, most of these changes on the Imran Khan BLP occur without me even adding any content and are unprovoked.

Talk Page Behavior
Discussions with them often result in WP:IDHT by them. Past aggressive remarks: [5] and [6]. They have accused me of bad faith and portraying Imran Khan as suffering because I used the word 'Campaigning', exhibiting IDHT in the discussion. Additionally, talk page discussions give an insight into Sheriff's POV as there are instances where Sheriff's comments on talk pages have veered into personal opinions. They stated that There was a legal issue about this because PTI failed to conduct intra-party elections properly. When you don’t follow the law, there are consequences. [7], which the "consequences" remark inserts their political opinion regarding PTI into a talk page. In this comment Claiming it was a false flag operation is a serious accusation. Simply stating that it wasn’t isn’t sufficient; it requires an explanation of why it wasn’t a false flag. [8], Sheriff challenges PTI's claim of a "false flag operation," which seems to stray into political bias, as it focuses on discrediting a political claim rather than representing the information in a factual manner. Additionally, another user pointed out that even after this report, Sheriff left remarks on an edit summary in the Imran Khan BLP [9]. The remark "One happy family, add a relevant photo of good time." is a further POV statement against Khan and is an insight into why they have added selectively imbalanced information and negative opinion pieces onto the Imran Khan BLP.

Edit Warring on Election Pages and 3RR
A major example of this behavior is that they reverted three times [10] [11] [12] on 2024 Pakistani general election, out of which 2 reverts were done within 24 hours, when already being told not to by multiple editors in this discussion, I decided to initiate a civil discussion first to avoid an edit war with Sheriff, though they still continued edit warring, continuing to quickly reduce the PTI's seats despite no consensus. Though this was solved, it is a repeated and worsening pattern of adding imbalanced content against Imran Khan and the PTI, exhibiting WP:IDHT in the talk page and then other users stepping in to resolve it.

Other Users Confirming This Behavior
Saqib - Saqib has raised concerns multiple times over SheriffIsInTown's POV pushing behavior patterns against PTI and Imran Khan on several pages including on Sheriff's talk page, primarily Sheriff removing PTI on election pages as well as in this discussion and here.

WikiEnthusiast1001 - WikiEnthusiast1001 has accused Sheriff of disruptive editing on the Imran Khan page and other pages recently. They also balanced out Sheriff's one-sided edits on Imran Khan and pointed out: This section is oddly worded and would be clearer if titled 'Controversies.' It presents a one-sided view without mentioning Imran's later clarifications. As Titan and I have noted, your strong involvement with this page suggests a potential bias. It might be best for you to take a break from editing and come back with fresh perspective. Take some time to unwind—there's more to life than just editing Wikipedia In their edit diff.

Saad Ali Khan Pakistan - Saad Ali Khan Pakistan has has accused SheriffIsInTown of bullying and constantly reverting his edits on election pages here and here. He recently urged admins to take action against Sheriff for said disruptive behavior.

I urge admins to take action for the POV pushing behavior, as multiple other users have taken notice of it, and the diffs on the Imran Khan BLP are clear. The resolution to this negative editing pattern which has to be constantly corrected for NPOV, would be a topic ban on pages related to Imran Khan for SheriffIsInTown. Titan2456 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the accusations mentioned here were addressed in a previous ANI, where the majority of uninvolved editors dismissed their report. After Drmies closed the discussion, they approached Drmies to reopen the discussion, but their request was denied, and they were instructed to present stronger evidence, which they have been attempting to gather since then. As I mentioned, most of these accusations were already discussed and dismissed in the previous ANI. If an admin highlights anything new, I will gladly address it. Most issues arise from OP adding promotional or biased content, which compels me to step in and balance the narrative. Their support for PTI and its leaders is clear from the user box displayed on their user page, as seen in this revision:

This user supports the
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

They are not a neutral editor and are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia but are instead driven by a political agenda. So far, I have only managed to address a fraction of their edits. In nearly every article related to a PTI figure that they have edited, they predominantly added promotional content, much of which still requires balancing—a task I intend to continue as time permits. I anticipate that they will return here repeatedly, as the promotional content they add can only be counterbalanced with material they may not favour, given their support for PTI and its leaders. They are upset with me because I am the only one standing in their way. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Titan2456, please post an ANI notification on the User talk page of every editor you mention in your opening comments, not just Sheriff. They should know that their comments might be discussed. No comment yet on the substance of your remarks. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

To SheriffIsInTown, most of these accusations were not taken up in the previous ANI, in fact several incidents brought up occurred after the first ANI. As mentioned, everyone is free to have their opinions on their user pages. Digging up old, now removed, revisions of my user page is not appropriate. This thread is on the POV pushing on the Imran Khan BLP which is very concerning as other users have pointed out as well.

This user supports the
Pakistan Muslim League (N).

As for the old pro-PTI userbox, I can easily find an old pro-PMLN userbox that existed your user page. Again, userboxes are irrelevant in this thread, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long as it does not affect the content of the encyclopedia, which the POV pushing on the Imran Khan BLP has. Titan2456 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It reflects an extreme level of battleground mentality to retrieve old versions of a deleted user page from the internet. The diffs I shared were entirely on-wiki and permissible for use. I created the articles First 100 days of Imran Khan’s premiership and Premiership of Imran Khan, which, up to the revisions shown, consist exclusively of my contributions. How much support for PML (N) do you see there? In contrast, your edits consistently reflect support for PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Here, they express a clear intention to specifically expand the criticism and allegations section against Ishaq Dar, a political opponent of PTI—the party they have openly declared their support for. Can we trust an editor who has openly aligned themselves with a political party and then explicitly states their intent to add criticism and allegations to articles about leaders of the opposing party? Shouldn’t their edits be reviewed for neutrality? Furthermore, they repeatedly file ANI reports against me for merely attempting to balance their edits, which ultimately wastes everyone’s time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

So much to unpack, so maybe I'll go section by section. The POV pushing appears to be neutrally balanced. The wording could be better, but that's why there's a talk page. Aggressive behavior? I mean yeah it's aggressive but it feels more like a slap on the wrist type of warning that could be given, nothing more. The 3RR was discussed last time. Two NOTFORUM remarks doesn't feel like enough and they aren't exactly forum-like comments anyways. So, what actually do you want accomplished? Do you need someone to wag their finger at Sheriff and tell them to calm down? From what I can tell aggression is not equal to disruption, but making constant ANI reports about one user is. Conyo14 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Conyo14, my primary concern is the POV pushing, which as stated is about not including other viewpoints (only adding criticism) when already knowing of such information. The opinion piece citation, only adding extensive amounts of negative information as well as watering down positive language on the Imran Khan BLP is WP:CPUSH. The reason for filing 2 reports was that following the report, Sheriff continued the same behavior, hence I have reported them again, with new information. The information added by Sheriff itself is not neutral, as it is covering contentious topics and presenting only one-sided views and criticism, it is POV. I acknowledge that most of these were solved in talk pages but the discussions involved WP:IDHT, with Sheriff ignoring points. For the 3RR example, it was only resolved after Saqib stepped in and the Imran Khan BLP after WikiEnthusiast1001 did. Similarly, in a recent discussion regarding the PTI's seat count, they have claimed to refuted Al Jazeera, BBC and multiple other newspapers with these remarks, which provides no source and ignores multiple sources given, it also ignores past and repeated discussions. These are repeated editing patterns and not isolated incidents which is why I have brought it to ANI. Regarding actions, if a user continues to cite opinion pieces, misrepresent sources to favor negative information, and present one-sided views on a specific BLP, I believe a topic ban from that specific BLP is a reasonable solution if this behavior persists after the first ANI report. I hope this clarifies this. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems more like countering your POV. In case you did not hear it, Conyo14 stated, So much to unpack, so maybe I’ll go section by section. The POV pushing appears to be neutrally balanced. This means they took the time to review your over 8,000-byte report, examined your evidence, and concluded that what you called POV pushing was actually an effort to achieve neutral balance. As I have explained before, in case you didn’t hear it, most of my edits were made to counter the overly promotional and one-sided content you added. That’s why my contributions might seem more negative—they balance out the positive bias you had already introduced. You left no room for me to add anything positive because your edits were so overwhelmingly favourable. Why would you submit an 8,000-byte report? Do you think I don’t face challenges with other editors? Yet, I don’t file such extensive reports against anyone because I have no political affiliation. Filing such a lengthy report suggests more than just volunteerism—it points to a deeper affiliation. You might have a conflict of interest here. A topic ban is warranted—not for me, but for you. You should be restricted from editing any post-1970 Pakistani politics-related articles to prevent further use of Wikipedia for advancing PTI’s political agenda and for targeting living opponents of PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What promotional information did I add on the Imran Khan BLP which prompted you to cite a negative opinion piece for two paragraphs without mentioning it was an opinion piece? When you added a paragraph about one large negative opinion piece, I was forced to balance it with some short sentences on some positive opinions (which there were multiple), which you did not allow for by selectively extracting negative information from positive opinion pieces, why was this? What promotional content did I add for you to add one-sided claims about Imran Khan's comments on sexual violence? Also, which living opponents of PTI have I "targeted", are you talking about Ishaq Dar? I have added no information on his article, please follow up, as I want to know which opponents of PTI I have disproportionally represented. Titan2456 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sheriff, it is not wrong to express support for a political party. It becomes a COI if Titan were working with a campaign or for the political party's headquarters. However, it will be very good to keep in mind during the next ANI report, if there is one.

Titan, again, that statement isn't POV pushing, but it was worded very poorly. The wording is much more appropriate now. Conyo14 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Expressing support for a political party is not inherently problematic, but when that support influences their editing and compromises neutrality, it becomes an issue. Based on my observations, the content they add to articles about PTI tends to lack neutral language and leans towards being promotional. For instance, the section titled "Education Sector Reforms" on PTI president's article focuses solely on achievements and could have been phrased in a more neutral manner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

To Conyo14, Yes, the wording is better now following the balancing corrections added by me and other users. The situation is that these are repeated incidents that I cannot keep correcting. If it was just citing an opinion piece or adding extensive negative information to Imran Khan’s time in office, I would give Sheriff the benefit of the doubt, but continuing to add Khan’s controversial comments on rape without him and his government’s clarification, despite Sheriff knowing this and expanding negative content from positive opinion pieces is a bit too far to be good faith. If you believe that filing an ANI report again for this is not the right course of action then please advise me what would be if this pattern is repeating over and over on a contentious high priority BLP. Thank you Conyo14. Titan2456 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate course of action for you would be to refrain from adding promotional content in the first place and instead ensure that the content is balanced, so I don’t need to intervene to correct it. Regarding content related to sexual misconduct, please note that there are standalone articles addressing such matters for other political figures, such as Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. The content I added was fully sourced, so there is no basis for you to criticise me for including it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the above comment, they added promotional content to the article on PTI president Parvez Elahi, as shown in this diff. Upon closer inspection, I identified issues with the first part of the content, while the second part references a PDF that will take me some time to review thoroughly. The first part, as noted in my edit summaries, was sourced to the university’s website, claiming the university was built by Elahi. There were two sources cited: The first source was a message from the vice chancellor. I removed it, explaining in the edit summary that it was a “Primary source, sourced to Vice Chancellor’s message.” The second source did not mention Elahi at all, so I removed the content with the edit summary “And no mention of Elahi in this second source.” For now, as long as this ANI remains open, I will continue reporting my findings on their apparent bias in favour of PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot on @Titan2456, I agree that a topic ban should be placed on Sheriff. Here, Sheriff makes a peculiar comment: "One happy family, add a relevant photo of good time." Similar to statements from Khan's opposition, this is highly unencyclopedic. Strangely, he placed the 2018 image in the Removal from office section, even though Khan was removed in 2022. Possibly biased? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about the comment. In the picture, they are smiling and can reasonably be described as "happy." Additionally, the fact that the picture is from 2018 is irrelevant since the section discusses the Army's role in Khan's removal. This is the only picture I could find where Khan and Bajwa, the head of the Army during his tenure, are present together. Why is it that no pictures of Khan interacting with Army personnel are being included in articles about him? While he may have had conflicts with the Army, we, as volunteer Wikipedians, do not. Moreover, why does Titan appear to be adding the cropped version of the same picture with Pompeo that excludes Bajwa? They are even placing that cropped picture of Khan with Pompeo under the Domestic appointments section, which does not align with the section's content. In contrast, the version, showing Bajwa, would have been far more relevant to the Domestic appointments section since Bajwa's tenure was extended during Khan's time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEnthusiast1001 Since you are already here, why not explain your action to remove the only criticism from the COVID-19 response section while filling it entirely with achievements and praise? The section is now heavily imbalanced and lacks a neutral perspective due to the removal of criticism. How about we hold you accountable for this action and consider a topic ban, given how readily you suggest such measure against me? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You are unfairly accusing me of removing criticism when I only removed excessive detail. Readers could easily hover over the citation to see the criticism, which was unnecessary and overly detailed. As @Titan2456 and @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan have pointed out, you seem overly attached to this page, treating it as if you own it. You've harassed multiple contributors, including me, by falsely accusing me of removing sources simply because they were Indian during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cawthome (2nd nomination) discussion. Your stubborn refusal to admit your mistake there and in this second ANI shows that YOU are the problem. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You did not remove excessive detail, as I highlighted in my earlier comment with the diff. You actually removed the only criticism in the COVID-19 response section, replacing it entirely with achievements. Should I paste here exactly what you added and removed in that edit? Accusing me of being overly attached to the article is baseless. Over your eleven months of account activity, your average monthly edits on this article surpass my own throughout my account’s lifespan—if we’re using that metric. Regarding the AfD, yes, I voted to keep and defended my stance with the sources I found. Ultimately, I was proven wrong, and you won the debate. However, that does not justify taunting me over and over and over again. I even approached your talk page to request that you drop the stick, yet you refuse to hear. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DETAIL you are supposed to summarize the main article, not add tens of negative Op-Eds. Titan2456 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

So, you are saying that per WP:DETAIL, adding all the following positive coverage by Enthusiast was okay: At the start of the pandemic, Imran Khan resisted a nationwide lockdown despite criticism from the opposition and others. He explained that while his government considered lockdowns implemented in other countries, they determined such measures would devastate Pakistan’s struggling economy, where many depend on daily wages.

“The Pakistan situation is not the same as that of the US or Europe...25 percent of our population is living in grave poverty,” Khan said in a televised address. “If we shut down cities, we might save people from corona, but they will die of hunger.”

Instead of placing a nationwide lockdown, Khan implemented targeted measures, shutting down COVID-19 hotspots by using military technology to track and trace those exposed. This "smart lockdown" approach aimed to isolate affected areas while minimizing economic disruption. "The ISI has given us a great system for track and trace," the prime minister, Imran Khan, said. "It was originally used against terrorism, but now it is has come in useful against coronavirus."

Khan's strategy proved effective, when he was praised by the World Health Organization (WHO) for his government's response to the virus by establishing temporary isolation wards. Bangladesh's The Business Standard lauded him for his "Smart Lockdowns", while the Imperial College of London ranked Pakistan at fourth for coronavirus reproduction in the country based on data from 20 July 2020. Pakistan achieved a rating of 0.73 rate, countries below 1 rating were considered the best for their efforts against Covid. In The Express Tribune, Muhammad Zohaib Jawaid said the PTI government achieved a "V-shaped economic recovery."

In September 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Pakistan was "among countries from whom the international community should learn how to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic."

In July 2021, Pakistan was ranked among the top 10 countries for its handling of Covid-19 by The Economist. Khan commended the National Command and Operation Center (NCOC), established by his government, for playing a significant role in the achievement. Pakistan secured the third spot with a score of 84.4. The top-ranked country was Hong Kong, scoring 96.3, followed by New Zealand with a score of 87.8.

In the East Asia Forum, Shuja Nawaz wrote Pakistan's "serious economic crisis exacerbated by COVID-19 forced Khan to seek external assistance" from the IMF, Saudi Arabia and China.

But following one paragraph of criticism which was removed by Enthusiast was not okay per WP:DETAIL: In an opinion editorial wrote in March 2020, Ayesha Siddiqa wrote Khan "appeared confused and not in charge of the situation. From poorly explaining the risks associated with the spread of the deadly coronavirus to badly calculating the pros and cons of a lockdown, the Pakistan Prime Minister has looked clueless". In April 2020, Imad Zafar penned an opinion editorial in The Asia Times, wrote Khan's government was "playing the blame game by bashing opposition politicians to divert the masses’ attention from the pandemic’s effect". In April 2020, the government's responses led to pandemic-related response confusion, being "lackadaisical" and having "deprived the country of a clear sense of direction."

References

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies or other available admins: I would like to point out that the OP keeps altering the original report after responses have been made. I believe this practice should be avoided, as earlier comments only address the initial report and not the subsequent changes. Given this concern, I request the closure of the report, as it is impractical to continually track and respond to the modifications being introduced. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The report shouldn’t be closed as the POV pushing on the Imran Khan BLP has not been addressed. My changes to the report only includes one new point which occurred after the report, with the remaining alterations being minor clarifications to the report. However I will stop altering the report if that is of concern to admins. Titan2456 (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You should not modify a report or any comment that has already received a response. This is part of basic ethics about any discussion on Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t believe there is a Wikipedia law preventing me from editing my own report, besides, admins will decide when it is closed, not you. Titan2456 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I was not deciding on my own, I was requesting the admins. 🙂 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456: Actually, there is. You should NOT alter your posts after someone has replied to them. It's considered disruptive and can result in sanctions. See WP:REDACT. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood, I stopped altering it after Sheriff informed me, thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, this report was frivolous to begin with and has already run its course, with only one uninvolved editor, Conyo14, commenting and dismissing the POV concerns raised against me. However, the counter-evidence I presented regarding the OP and the other involved editor, WikiEnthusiast1001, requires evaluation. Unfortunately, we have not received any input from uninvolved editors regarding their behaviour. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

A slight correction: Conyo14 did note that the OP’s repeated filing of an ANI constitutes disruptive behaviour, which, in my view, supports my stance that this was a frivolous ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That is why it is best to wait for an admin response rather than bludgeoning and rushing for a closure of discussion. Drmies also raised concerns over the POV pushing, which is why more admins must be heard from on the POV pushing. Titan2456 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I was correct to raise the concern about your modification of the report which has already received scores of replies. It is totally unfair for you to do that, you should revert those edits made after the report started receiving replies. Nobody is trying to bludgeon, I merely stated the feedback we have received so far. Drmies' concern has already been addressed, and I have clarified my position in response. Additionally, most Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and ANI is an integral part of Wikipedia. We cannot compel anyone to provide feedback. When participating in a forum, you should accept the voluntary feedback given and move forward. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It has received only 2 replies by admins. By that logic Conyo14’s concern has already been addressed, we have to wait for an admin decision. The last part of your comment is unwarranted, everyone knows this information that applies to closed discussions, I can also say the same for violating consensus and BRD multiple times to add opinion pieces and one-sided information. You cannot disavow a report involving you as frivolous, wait for admins. Titan2456 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree too. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) I have been editing in Wikipedia since 2017 and I tried to be as neural as possible while editing pages. I never involved in unnecessary changes or edits which are not related to that person. I mainly focused on constituency pages and electoral history related pages because they were not updated like electoral pages of India. I edited over 900 constituency pages of National Assembly and Provincial assemblies of Pakistan and didn't favor any party or went against any party or politician. I was editing daily until Sheriff came and started bullying by reverting edits I made before 2024 elections. I wanted to add election boxes in constituency pages so that during and after election results it would be easy for the editors to edit and write results. He came and reverted my edits and even after elections when majority of Media sources from Pakistan and the World were showing PTI backed Independents separate from other Independents having support of no parties. He started to argue with me and reverted my edits again. I stopped editing since March because I don't have spare time to waste on a person who likes to bully and argue with other editors like he owns Wikipedia. If a person writes information without credible source their edits should be reverted but if someone reverts edits for no reason than I consider this harassment and bullying and this needs to be stopped. An Institution like Wikipedia should not tolerate bullies like Sheriff which misuse their influence and bully other editors. I request Administration to take serious action against bullies like Sheriff. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert)

User:SheriffIsInTown, I'm a bit surprised you made this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on the conduct of either party or on the content of the article. The filing editor had filed a request at DRN for moderated discussion, and then filed this case here. I have closed the DRN discussion because we do not discuss a dispute at DRN that is also being discussed in another content forum or a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I support that decision, thank you Robert McClenon. Titan2456 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies There was certainly scope for improvement, and I accepted the subsequent revisions made to that content. That being said, that diff was part of the previous ANI filed against me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sheriff, you did not accept subsequent revisions, that is false, and this proves it’s not a one-off mistake. First, you undid my edit of mentioning it is an opinion piece, then you argued that it was a reliable source which did not need a mention of the opinion piece status, then when addressed in talk, you accused me of Why do you consistently choose the most positive angles for PTI and Imran Khan and never balance it with contrary views to maintain neutrality? I am simply correcting the one-sided narrative, which came across as a chancellorship campaign, portraying him as suffering and still fighting and campaigning from jail. simply because I told you it was necessary to mention it is an opinion piece. Finally after you were convinced, I added a short few sentences about 3 positive opinion pieces, which as per WP:DUE would actually require more information than the 1 negative opinion piece. Regardless, you didn’t even allow for that and selectively extracted negative information from these mostly positive opinion pieces. Admins, I once again urge you to take notice of this behavior. Titan2456 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit you claim I undid was actually the result of an edit conflict. I had been working on several other language changes in that section for a while and had the editor open. It seems I published my edit around the same time as you, which inadvertently resulted in reverting your changes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, in the hatted portion of this discussion you mention the possibility of an "off-wiki PTI cabal". Please don't make conspiracy theory allegations like this unless you have some proof to support your claims. We're just focusing on editing on this project, not speculating about off-wiki connections which are unlikely to be real. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Understood. I will refrain from doing so in the future. However, I have some screenshots showing that someone approached me with this information. I would prefer not to reveal the identity of my source. My comment was triggered by the repeated appearance of Saad Ali Khan Pakistan in these ANI discussions, despite their account not having been used for main space editing since March. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• WikiEnthusiast1001 has been observed removing archived URLs from content likely perceived as negative by PTI and Imran Khan supporters. By removing these links, the content risks being challenged or removed later for failed verification in case of a broken url. This material had been part of a longstanding consensus and previously involved intense disputes. In their edit summary, they claimed to be removing duplicate sources and a source with an incorrect date, but their edits included more extensive removals beyond what was stated. The issue here is their simultaneous request for my topic ban, which would give them greater control over the page to make such changes unchecked. Titan often misinterprets sources to present content more positively, while Enthusiast introduces questionable edits with summaries that omit critical details about their actions. I had to step in and restore those archived URLs, but with my removal from the article, it risks becoming an even more biased fan page than it already is. Ironically, they attempt to turn pages into fan pages and then submit them for GAN, which inevitably fails due to the lack of neutrality and balance, as seen in this case. Instead of pushing for my topic ban, they should be thanking me for bringing balance and neutrality to the article, helping it get closer to GAN. The beauty of Wikipedia is that people come from different backgrounds and with different perspectives which help achieve neutrality and balance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your logic is flawed regarding "removing archived URLs from content likely perceived as negative by PTI and Imran Khan supporters." If I were genuinely trying to turn it into a fanpage or saw the content as negative, I would have removed the entire URLs, not just the archived versions. I removed the archived URLs because I believed they were unnecessary, given that the live links were still accessible. I realize now that this was a mistake and will include archived links moving forward. Before making false accusations, take the time to investigate. For instance, I replaced an inaccurate source claiming Sita died in 2012 with a reliable one providing the correct date. Additionally, I corrected the chronological order of references, which you restored without verifying. Since when does a permanently dead link like Hutchens & Midgley 2015 take precedence over live URLs? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:CITEORDER, the ordering does not matter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  After I informed them about WP:CITEORDER, Enthusiast proceeded to mass revert all the changes I had made throughout the day, despite my edits being done in smaller increments with clear explanations in the edit summaries. Their edit summary for the mass revert stated Restoring chronological order undone by Sheriff and removing duplicate AP link, but their actions reversed far more than just that but they blame me for ownership issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

HATting discussion initiated by now blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This shows how neutral he is. In election pages of 1988 and 2015 Senate Elections MQM and PMLN ran as independents but they are shown as party but he is only showing PTI candidates as Independents. How can he do these kinds of edits without any discussion or consensus. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) I do not recall ever editing the two Senate election pages you mentioned. Can you provide diffs showing me listing independent candidates as belonging to PML-N or MQM, or even supporting such a claim? It’s interesting how you appear in every ANI filed against me—this is the third one where you’ve shown up, repeating the same unfounded allegations. The last time, after seven months of inactivity, you surfaced specifically for my ANI. Your contribution frequency speaks for itself. For the onlookers: Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you are definitely not here to build encyclopedia but rather here to just target me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC) I went inactive just because of you. You were keep reverting my edits without no reason. You are the reason why Pakistani pages of Wikipedia are not updated like Indian or other countries. I wanted to contribute as much as possible but I will get bullied by reverting my edits by you. I give my time and effort and you come from no where and revert my edits by just one click. You should be ashamed of your behavior. Wherever any case will be filed involving you I will raise my voice to show your reality. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) So, you are accepting that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but your life's mission now is to target me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC) I am here to show your reality of you that you are a bully. I don't consider bullies like you to be targeted or discussed. I am just here to give my opinion. My life has much important things to do instead of wasting my time and energy on a person like you who just likes to bully so that he gets discussed by other editors. I am not a supporter of any party and not a person like you targeting just one party and its leader and claims to be so-called "Neutral" which is a joke. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) I don’t know the validity of Saad Ali Khan Pakistan’s claims but saying that he is not here to build an encyclopedia is absurd, when one takes a further notice at his contributions, he updated every single Pakistani Constituency with 2023 delimitations, a large set of neutral edits he would have nothing to gain out of. Additionally, Sheriff, if you think every user who says something against you is part of a “PTI cabal”, feel free to report them on ANI in a separate thread, as this thread is for your actions. To Administrators: So far, SheriffIsInTown has accused WikiEnthusiast1001, Myself and Saad Ali Khan Pakistan of being part of a “PTI cabal”, needing a topic ban and being not here to build an encycolpedia. Pardon my language but these claims are absurd, while SheriffIsInTown themselves has remained unanswerable for their POV pushing on the Imran Khan BLP, which is this threads topic. Titan2456 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC) See constituency pages of NA-1 Chitral, PK-1 Chitral, PK-2 Chitral, PK-3 Swat which he reverted for no reason. I edited them before and he said it is against neutrality and when i tried editing again during and after election he reverted them again. I have seen Indian Lok Sabha pages which added candidates in election boxes before polls but he didnt let me add election boxes before election. every constituency of National Assembly is showing PTI backed Independents as regular independents which makes readers confusing. See 1988 elections MQM candidates an as independents but they are shown separate from other independents because they had support of MQM but he still showed PTI candidates as Independents. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) Since you are speaking on their behalf, how do you explain their appearance in an ANI which you filed against me in October after being inactive since March? Did you approach them, and if so, how? Their actions—showing up in an ANI against me after seven months of inactivity and then appearing in this ANI again—clearly suggest they are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia but are solely targeting me. Can you explain what else they have contributed to over the last eight months? Feel free to report them on ANI in a separate thread, as this thread is about your actions. However, when you accuse someone of wrongdoing in an ANI, your own behaviour can also be scrutinised. Separate ANIs are not necessary for that. Keep in mind that if you file an ANI against another editor, your actions will also be subject to evaluation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Are you really asking that question? When someone is tagged/mentioned in an ANI report, you get a notification as I tagged Saad Ali Khan Pakistan in both reports. Titan2456 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Even if I were away from Wikipedia for seven months, I wouldn’t return solely to participate in an ANI or constantly monitor my notifications to ensure I don’t miss appearing in one. It’s simply not practical—unless someone is so driven by a battleground mindset that they make a deliberate effort to check their notifications daily to seize every possible opportunity. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Moreover, how do you hear about ANI's against me? Are you part of some off-wiki PTI cabal that I have heard so much about? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) This has been long due 👉🏽 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sanctions

At this point, I think some page-blocks needed handed out, at least temporarily to force these participants to discuss the issue rather than constantly reverting and/or edit-warring over the article. This is beyond ridiculous. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Full protection of the article Imran Khan would be ideal, restricting edits to administrators only based on edit requests at the talk page. This would ensure that no content is added based on a misinterpretation of the sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with HandThatFeeds. The page may just need some temporary blocks on the involved participants until order is restored. Imran Khan is a good start. Then maybe the election pages. The original complaint I think has been thoroughly discussed enough to end the bickering here, until the next ANI complaint at least. Conyo14 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was dragged to ANI by the OP and had no choice but to defend myself. So far, the only editor who raised any concerns was Drmies, who questioned just one of my edits, and even then, it was unclear, with the comment "I'm a bit surprised you made this edit." That specific edit was already part of the ANI filed by the same OP in October. I acknowledged that I had made a mistake in not properly attributing the content, and I accepted the necessary changes in later revisions. Allowing this situation to set a precedent would imply that persistent complaints and enough bickering at ANI could lead to a ban, regardless of whether there was a genuine reason for it. This would effectively reward disruptive behavior—if I make enough noise at ANI, I could get the outcome I want. It would tarnish my record, and I want to avoid that if my editing actions don't justify a ban. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

1) The subsequent revisions were not accepted and it took a lengthy discussion, which involved multiple unnecessary bad faith accusations towards me.

2) As mentioned, multiple instances of this behavior, spanning multiple months on the same BLP, always pushing towards a negative stance is the concern, not isolated mistakes.

3) To SheriffIsInTown, I still request a response for this comment, which is yet to receive a response: “What promotional information did I add on the Imran Khan BLP which prompted you to cite a negative opinion piece for two paragraphs without mentioning it was an opinion piece? When you added a paragraph about one large negative opinion piece, I was forced to balance it with some short sentences on some positive opinions (which there were multiple), which you did not allow for by selectively extracting negative information from positive opinion pieces, why was this? What promotional content did I add for you to add one-sided claims about Imran Khan's comments on sexual violence? Also, which living opponents of PTI have I "targeted", are you talking about Ishaq Dar? I have added no information on his article, please follow up, as I want to know which opponents of PTI I have disproportionally represented.”

4) After this is addressed, I would support the page block TheHandThatFeeds proposed to prevent the continuation of this behavior, thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

From this point on, I will only respond if an uninvolved editor raises a concern. Our back-and-forth has already made this ANI unnecessarily lengthy. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that SheriffIsInTown is still making changes to the Imran Khan page. Titan2456 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's been implemented, and I doubt anything will be. Unfortunately for the involved, this will more than likely taken back to the respective talk pages and this ANI will have no repercussions, aside from a sock being found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a further notice, SheriffIsInTown has yet again placed imbalanced undue weight on negative sources on the Imran Khan BLP. They have again cited an opinion piece without mentioning it is an opinion piece and reduced a news report into an opinion piece.

In April 2020, the government's responses led to pandemic-related response confusion, being "lackadaisical" and having "deprived the country of a clear sense of direction." The third source, added by Sheriff, is an opinion piece is not mentioned as an opinion piece.

In The Express Tribune, Muhammad Zohaib Jawaid said the PTI government achieved a "V-shaped economic recovery." This source, which I added, is a report not an opinion piece, yet has been given undue weight by SheriffIsInTown and has been reduced to a short sentence.

The only difference between the two topics is one speaks positively about Khan and one speaks negatively. Not sure if it would be a better idea to take this up with the NPOV noticeboard as I don’t want to waste the admins time. Titan2456 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

They are misrepresenting everything here. As I mentioned earlier, I will no longer provide lengthy responses to defend myself unless an uninvolved editor or admin specifically asks me to explain. Please do not interpret my lack of response or defense as an admission of guilt. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple individuals involved in dispute blocked for sockpuppetry/private evidence

• I do find something a bit odd here with respect to the "Other Users Confirming This Behavior" section mentioned by OP in the initial post: Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been blocked as a sockupppet, while Saqib (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been ArbCom blocked. This was not obvious to anyone at the start of this thread on 17 November, though I would encourage users to read this thread anew in that light. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313 promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Original heading: November 2024

This user appears to be on Wikipedia to promote their organization, as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ram112313 They have blanked out all their warnings and blocks on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ram112313 I just added a final warning to their talk page. Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ram1751, thanks for the notification. Which organization exactly are they promoting? Can you provide multiple examples (diffs) where that organization was added to articles? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They are promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha - many WP:OR additions (some with an overtly promotional tone) and removal of sourced material not complimentary to the organization. See diffs here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hindu_temples_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1255906861

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_denominations&diff=prev&oldid=1205761794

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shri_Radhika_Krishnashtaka&diff=prev&oldid=1255480033

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1254947172

- Ram1751 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd now like to hear a statement from Ram112313 or block for disruptively ignoring community concerns in case the editing continues without a statement being provided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The edits to the Shri Radhika-Krishnashtaka article, as reflected in the edit history, demonstrate that the previous version was heavily skewed with a non-neutral tone, failing to align with Wikipedia's standards for balanced and unbiased content. Similarly, the changes made to the List of Hindu temples article included an incorrect claim that the Shri Ranganathaswamy Temple is larger than Swaminarayan Akshardham, which is factually inaccurate. As stated within the article itself, Swaminarayan Akshardham is indeed larger in both single structure size and hectares. Regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) edits, discussions are ongoing on the article's talk page, and no further updates have been finalized yet. Additionally, my other contributions, such as the edits to the Shikshapatri article, do not reflect any bias toward BAPS and adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. The removal of sourced material in the Desh Lekh Vibhag edits was solely due to issues such as incorrect information, dead links, or non-verifiable sources, all of which are against Wikipedia's guidelines. These edits were made to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliable and verifiable content. Ram112313 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ChatGPT, we'll need Ram112313's own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

These are my own words. All I used is grammarly lol. Ram112313 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, are you connected to Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha in any way? Do you have a conflict of interest? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No I am not. I am a practicing Hindu but not a part of any organized sect. Ram112313 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. Ram1751, thoughts? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This user's edits provide evidence they are a pro-BAPS sock puppet "pushing for a branch specific POV narrative and removal of critical information" in the words of @Kbhatt22 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(New_Jersey)#Lawsuit_in_introduction_section Their edits include "over glorification of BAPS ideology in the faith, removal of BAPS critical sourced content, talking up BAPS temples, downplaying the beliefs of other branches." Agree with @Ratnahastin that this is a BAPS SPA. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, based on these concerns, would you agree not to make edits related to Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha again? As you have no connection to them, you can surely find other interesting topics to edit about; see the Task Center and the community portal for additional ideas. If you disagree, please explain your focus on this subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a strong focus on Hinduism, especially the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, and a solid understanding of the different sects within the tradition. While I’m open to avoiding edits on specific pages, most of my contributions have added meaningful details. For instance, including Swaminarayan Akshardham in the article on Hindu temples in America is essential, as it highlights a major aspect of Hindu influence in the United States. Ram112313 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, I understand that this is essential to you, but that's part of the alleged issue. Can you let one of the over 48,311,874 other Wikipedia users make such decisions as your neutrality about this specific topic is being questioned by multiple others? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

When have I ever downplayed the importance of other sects within Swaminarayan sampradya and even those of other Hindu traditions? Ram112313 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313 certainly appears to be a SPA dedicated to promoting BAPS. They were aggressively edit warring on Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) to whitewash the details about the controversial lawsuit the temple has been involved in from the article and were blocked[13] because of it. Their responses on talkpage felt like they were written by AI and were essentially repeating themselves again and again instead of understanding what the other editors were trying to say.[14] - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Your efforts to not have a proper consensus as well as repeated edit revisions pushing a non neutral point of view was noted by many other editiors within the talk page as well. The lawsuit had already been throughly included in the article and your previous edits gave a unbalanced view until you mentioned the withdrawal of the lawsuit to try and make it more neutral. Ram112313 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Violating the five pillars of Wikipedia

• זור987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear administrators, I was redirected here from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by DatGuy.

Using repeated words against me like "dumb user", "trolling", "Complete nonsense" and "rude user", violates the fourth rule of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

I explained the editing of the article with these words: "SD does not meet the criteria. Tagging Adolphus79 who explained it here. The user has already been blocked from editing Yarden Gerbi due to continuous edit wars. His request to delete a video in commons was also declined."

The right step was to avoid edit warring. User:זור987 has not had ownership upon any article nor any Wikipedia. I am eligible to write any article I wish, which meets the criteria of that WP. Blaming me writing articles of any kind is also against the five pillars.

Dovno, who was a bureaucrat in the He WP, has already warned זור987 from editing Alex Fridman and Disabled, Not Half a Human Being in Hebrew, as shown here. Here I add that זור987 proposed "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" for deletion in the En WP.
זור987 also put a notability template upon "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" in the He WP, but was declined.

Erez Da Drezner meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and his other deeds. The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not to be speedy deleted in 2024.

Therefore, I ask to block זור987, or at least block him from editing this article and its talk page. Thank you, --DgwTalk 13:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Dorian Gray Wild, tracking, stalking and rude to me all over the Wiki. Every edit that I doing on his articles, resulting in his revertings and now, he treating me with blocking about legitimate things that I've done in the Hebrew Wikipedia.

I think that someone needs to ask in Wikimedia to globally block this user. זור987 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OK so this is *not* the appropriate venue to discuss edit conflicts on Hebrew Wikipedia. The only thing I'll note is that this AfD looks malformed. I'd suggest going and fixing it so that it's properly indexed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the AfD nomination but have not investigated its merits. TSventon (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, the words "a dumb user", "trolling", "Complete nonsense" and "This rude user" as well as "rude to me" were written by זור987 in the En WP, not in the He WP.

I was not rude to זור987, as I did not use any incorrect word.

I did not stalk anybody. FastilyBot notified me the speedy deletion, which was not legal as indicated here.

זור987's thought that "someone needs to ask in Wikimedia to globally block this user" is not legal neither, because he did not notify my talk page. DgwTalk 14:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A 2-way i-ban might be a good remedy here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:זור987 needs to provide evidence (from enwiki) of his claims here to see if there is anything sanctionable in User:Dorian Gray Wild's edits. But the reverse is obvious, User:זור987 needs at the very least a strong warning, for things like this edit summary (they aren't supposed to reinstate a Prod tag either, but that's just something that needs explaining). And looking at the editor interactions on enwiki[15], there are only two articles where they have both edited, and in both cases the articles were created by Dorian Gray Wild and he was followed there by זור987. So it looks like זור987's claims that Dorian is "tracking, stalking and rude to me all over the Wiki." is (at least on enwiki) a rather blatant attempt to reverse reality. No two-way interaction ban is warranted here, the behaviour of only one participant is a real issue apparently. Fram (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dorian Gray Wild have a history in the Hebrew Wikipedia of being rude, threatening, stalking and tracking users including me. Hence he is blocked permanently there, including his talk page. Matanya even globally blocked him.

After the user managed to dodge his global locking, he continued to stalk and track me even here, including Erez Da Drezner, where he tried to cancel the purposed deletion of it, by removing the template. Since he have no any administrator right to do so, I reverted his action. He generally have a tendency to write article about the disability in Israel, including persons and organizations which mostly don't have any encyclopedic importance outside the Hebrew Wikipedia. In the case of Erez Da Drezner, this person don't have an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia and have no important achievements, and because of this, I think Dorian should be globally blocked once again. Unfortunately, Matanya is no longer a dale in Wikimedia, and there are no other Hebrew speaking dales in Wikimedia, which can help me. זור987 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"he continued to stalk and track me even here, including Erez Da Drezner": you are quite liberal with the truth here. He created that article, and you are the one that "stalked and tracked" them on enwiki (in both articles where you both edited). Every editor has the right to remove a Proposed deletion, you don't need to be an admin to do so, and no one may normally reinstate it. We will not locally block anyone for writing a perfectly normal about a person who doesn't have a Hebrew Wikipedia article and may or may not be really notable, nor for being stalked and insulted by you, and not even for being blocked on Hebrew Wikipedia. Admins here may block you though, for stalking, insulting, and trying to place the blame for this on someone else even when this is pointed out to you. Fram (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There are tons of things in the English Wikipedia which I don't know about them, because they are false in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to learn our policies here, or stick to Hebrew Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Fram for your words.

זור987 stalked me everywhere, and followed an AfD in the It WP. They claimed that "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" was not exist in Italian. Afterwards, he changed "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" into "נכה, לא חצי בן אדם" in the En WP. How could the English reader read the words "נכה, לא חצי בן אדם" in the middle of the En article? זור987 could put a ref, stating that it was not an official name in English. It really does not matter anyone. Let us read an article about a Brazilian organization whose name is Brazilian Association for Self-Defense. Is it the official name in English? No source supports it.

Furthermore, the article said clearly that it was a slogan. How could זור987 claim "No official names for Alex Fridman association in other languages" for a slogan? It is almost vandalism.

I ask the administrators to block זור987 from any interaction with articles which I created. If זור987 sees something which bothers him, he may consult another editor, and that editor will think about it. --DgwTalk 22:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

From your words, I can see how you tracking me in the Wiki. How do you know that I followed an AfD in the Italian Wikipedia regarding to your article "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being", if I didn't participated in it? You don't have an admin rights there, so if you uses illegal ways to track me there, so you indeed tracking and stalking me, and this should be stopped. זור987 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

זור987, I think we've heard enough allegations from you. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, I am sorry to tell that זור987 violated the one way interaction ban which was written here, by editing it and it. זור987 is not allowed to change or edit Alex Fridman in any way.

I have already consulted Liz how to write the name of the organization correctly, and they referred me to the proper guideline. I have read it just now, and went to edit the organization name in the correct way, but זור987 interfered me, although he was not allowed to do so. Please block זור987 for one week, so I can finish the editings of Alex Fridman and another article which was deleted and was restored by Liz. Thank you, DgwTalk 16:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for violating WP:IBAN. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Propose one-way Interaction Ban between זור987 and Dorian Gray Wild

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

---

It is clear that זור987 has been stalking Dorian Gray Wild on enwiki, and to make matters worse claims the exact opposite in the face of all the evidence. While only enwiki behaviour is really important for an enwiki sanction, it does look like they have been following Dorian Gray Wild to other sister projects as well[16]. Coupled with the blatant personal attacks, I see no reason to let זור987 continue to make any edits related to Dorian Gray Wild or the articles Dorian has edited. As Dorian Gray Wild has done nothing wrong towards זור987, there is no reason to make this a two-way ban, but obviously it would be best if they leave זור987 alone on enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support clearly disruptive behaviour supported with flimsy excuses. Not good enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What's worse is that in April 2024, זור987 went to a Steward's User talk page on Meta (see here), asking for Dorian Gray Wild to be globally blocked from the entire WikiMedia project because Dorian Gray Wild was insulting and stalking זור987 on the English Wikipedia. I see no evidence of that that has been presented in this discussion and, in fact, it looks like the harrassment is going in the opposite direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Liz for your comment. I emailed to you about an En WP rule which was not clear to me. DgwTalk 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support זור987 has already been warned regarding me.

זור987 also requested דוד שי to block me from my talk page, claiming that I told Senior baron about the deletion request. The Hebrew title which זור987 used for his application was: "Emergency! Someone has undone the global block of the user Dorian Gray Wild!" (!Dorian Gray Wild מצב חירום! מישהו ביטל את החסימה הגלובלית של המשתמש).

Telling Senior baron about a DR is not a reason to block me from my own talk page. זור987 also claimed that I "followed" the He WP admin PurpleBuffalo who had asked ערן, another admin, to block the IP range of the troll who imported his trolling into my talk page, which lasted there for more than two years. The troll page is here.

The result was that זור987 practically supported a declared troll by returning its trolling, claiming that I had not archived it. In the end, a third He WP admin deleted the trolling. As expected, זור987 asked also the third admin why they did it. DgwTalk 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, User:Dorian Gray Wild, I asked זור987 not to import disputes from the Hebrew Wikipedia here and I'm going to tell you the same. For one thing, different Wikipedia has different rules from each other and plus, we don't know the admins you are referring to. Best to keep your evidence limited to what has happened here. I just added the mention to Meta to show זור987's persistence in trying to get you sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The beginning said that the user has already been warned in the En WP by the admin El C, who is still an active admin. DgwTalk 09:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Creation of (apparent) hoaxes about Indian politics

An SPI was opened into the conduct of RAGULVARMA PRABHU (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), who was using several accounts to create hoaxes about Indian politicians, but it was closed with no action taken, since the accounts were used sequentially, and were not used for block evasion. I come here instead of SPI because no blocks have been issued toward any of the accounts, meaning that there still is technically no violation of the policy, despite the continuing use of even more accounts (see Special:Contributions/RMD1999) to create more hoax articles and drafts. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JJP, can you link to any of these "hoax articles"? You haven't provided much here to investigate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry for the oversight, here are some examples:

• Draft:P.RAGULVARMA
• Rmr. Ragulvarma (currently at AfD)
• Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU (G3'd)
• Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK
• User:RMR2004/sandbox (G3'd)
• DEEPA RAGULVARMA (A7'd)
• PMK RAGULVARMA (A10'd)

One recurring theme is that the articles usually transclude a section from Gummidipoondi Assembly constituency showing real election results, that do not include the people the articles are about as candidates. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, JJP, this helps a lot. When I get time tonight, I'll look through the deleted ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: RMD1999 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has now begun to rapidly submit drafts that are copy-pastes of articles about real Indian politicians. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As the original SPI filer I would not say these are clear and not just apparent hoaxes. The content is has based on other actual politicians, they keep claiming to be part of the fictitious "DIRACTOR OF MINISTRY" and the images are AI hoaxes. File:RAGULVARMA PRABHU.png and File:RAGULVARMA PRABHU.jpg have been flagged as obvious fakes over on commons (edit:just been deleted). Lastly not a single source in any of the hoaxes I've reviewed has even mentioned the subject. KylieTastic (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Other example hoaxes: Draft:P RAGULVARMA, Draft:RMR RAGULVARMA, Draft:PMK RAGULVARMA, User:RMD1999/sandbox KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They have just created yet another hoax article Ragulvarma Prabhu M.K. KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just tagged RAGULVARMA P M as db-hoax, editor from same SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU MK and Draft:Deepa Ragulvarma all created today by RMR2004 active 15th-21st so now overlapping with RMD1999 active 19th-20th so definitely socking, as well as getting away with creating endless hoaxes and wasting lots of editors time. KylieTastic (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked @RMR2004 as NOT HERE and @RMD1999 as a sockpuppet of RMR2004. If another admin disagrees feel free to unblock/take other actions. Sohom (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sohom — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about closing this yet as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive has yet to be resolved. But it looks like all of the contributions from this sockfarm have been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well, the investigation is archived, so should it be reopened? JJP_Master (she/they) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, JJP. I posted the link, I should have noticed that it was an archived SPI case. My oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Article Draft:Ragulavarma Prabhu, created 21 Nov as Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU M.K, is another hoax draft by another sock, this time a minor tweak of Kaduvetti Guru [17]. Wikishovel (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Epic Refusal to Discuss Edits

I posted a thread earlier about @user:Ethiopian Epic [18]. It was then decided that nothing wrong was done yet. Now EE has started an edit war and refuses to use the talk page, despite being requested multiple times by myself. Ethiopian Epic claims their edits were explained in the edit summaries. However, the summaries are vague[19], or don't apply[20]. Parts of the revert was part of an earlier dispute with another user, and goes against the sources. Most of the reverts I just don't understand. I have been researching the topic and there are different views expressed by different sources, and I am still trying to figure out which the current scholarship is.

I posted a warning about edit warring on EE's talk page[21]. EE responded with a warning on my page.[22] EE also received a warning from @user:Hemiauchenia [23]. EE's edits on Samurai continue to be much larger than any other edit EE has made. Most of EE's other edits were reverted by other users.[24] Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help thinking this is connected to our latest CTOP area although their edits so far have been disconnected enough I'm not comfortable giving them an alert. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there might be a connection, but without better evidence, I suggest handling it as if Ethiopian Epic is a new user who doesn't understand how things work. I don't know how to collaborate with an editor who refuses to use the talk page and thinks two word edit summaries are enough explanation for large reverts. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have invited them to come discuss their edits on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Epic responded on my talk page.[25] Is this usual behaviour for new editors? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you moving the goalposts? You said I refused to discuss edits but that's not true I made a section. I just want to improve the article. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not moving goalposts. You made a large revert and I have asked you to discuss it on Talk:Samurai, which you still haven't done, despite you posting a message on my talk page asking me to discuss this issue there. Granted, once you post there, I might have more questions. That really isn't what is meant by "moving the goalposts." It should be clear that an explanation of your revert is the first step. Please read wp:communicate. Thank you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. First you made the incorrect assertion that I was refusing to engage in discussion, which is untrue. I started a discussion but you are refusing to tell me your issues with my edits which is bizarre.

Now you suggesting my discussion is in the wrong spot which I think is wrong but also seems nitpicky. It seems like you are not really trying to collaborate with others very much. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am trying a new approach. I removed just the line that has already been disputed and linked to the discussion. I have already linked to this discussion area on EE's talk page, so I am not sure it will work. I have also added more sources to support my position. I have already had to deal with one editor on this page, where I had the feeling that I was putting a lot more work into answering his challenges, then he was in making them. The article needs a lot of work and it is frustrating when one doesn't know why things are being reverted. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz This continues to be a issue. I tried restoring only the parts that had a citation, and giving an explanation in the edit summary, because EE was ignoring the article talk page. EE reverted again and asks for quotes from "this".[26] I am not what "this" means. There are three sources cited, and one has the relevant section in the first few lines. EE has replaced cited text with claims that have no sources. EE also replied to on the talk page, but the reply was I disagree and basically asking me to prove a negative.[27] I had already given a bunch of evidence. I have done a lot of work, but seem stuck trying to guess what Epic's objections are. EE also has now edited the List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. EE undid reverted to a version that had been added by drive by users, but goes against consensus and the RS. The edit summary was vague.[28]. @Nil Einne does this change your mind about the CTOP? Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if there's not direct evidence this is part of the Yasuke CTOP, it seems suspiciously like the issues around that editing topic. If nothing else, EE's repeated edit-warring to enforce their preferred wording & removal of cited sources should result in a topic-ban from samurai articles, broadly construed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tinynanorobots was editing-warring.[29][30][31][32][33] When I went to his talk page to figure out why, he dodged the question and refused to tell me any specific issue that was wrong with the changes which is confusing to me.

From what I can see from looking at his edits Tinynanorobots only edits these articles and has previous issues with edit warring. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

A topic ban would probably solve the problem. Although someone should probably explain how things work, especially where the right place to discuss things are. EE hasn't really discussed anything specifically. Just looking at the posts, one wouldn't know that we were discussing samurai.[34] EE also keeps saying false things. Such as claiming to have created a section or claiming to be just removing uncited text[35]. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Numerous factual errors here.

"because EE was ignoring the article talk page"

I responded on both the article talk page and in the discussion I started on your talk page[36] where you still refuse to go into detail on what exactly the issue is. I hope that you will.

"There are three sources cited"

I didn't see the text in any of the sources which is why I asked for a quote. Why do you have an issue with providing a page number?

"EE undid reverted to a version that had been added by drive by users"

No I undid an edit that was made without consensus where multiple sources were removed.[37]

Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've restored what I believe is the article's status quo version. Ethiopian Epic, who's made several contentious edits with summaries that never actually explain anything, keeps insisting they're the only one who isn't sealioning here. This has gone on for weeks and it started with an impossibly aggressive edit to Samurai, which appears headed to a CTOP designation, that had a summary of "Some improvements." That's something else. City of Silver 01:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wait for Tinynanorobots to reply to the talk page discussion. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ethiopian Epic: You're most welcome! Although I'm not sure why you replied to me since my message wasn't for you. No, I'm trying to get administrators to respond to the barrage of bullying you've perpetrated against Tinynanorobots lately. I wish I hadn't felt the need to leave that highly aggressive edit summary when I reverted you at Samurai but you've been sealioning so much that I genuinely don't believe you're open to a real discussion. Prove me wrong by stopping editing that article in any way until the discussion at its talk page has come to a resolution. City of Silver 07:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Tinynanorobots hostile behavior and problems

Without engaging in any discussion with me or asking any questions Tinynanorobots made a strange thread about me accusing me of something I don't understand.[38] I'm not sure what the purpose was but in retrospect it seems like it was an attempt to intimidate me or scare me off. I think if he was attempting to work with others he would've just asked me? Anyway.

All of the admins there told him that there was no issue. Despite that, not long after he made one again[39] with a false claim that I am refusing to discuss edits but that's not true. I started a discussion with him to understand why he edit-warred, but he refused to tell me any specific issue that was wrong with the changes which is confusing to me and bizarre.

I don't have a reason to assume he's not a nice person but it seems like he is spamming these reports just so he can scare me off or get his way on the articles he likes.

Edit: I checked Tinynanorobot's history and he has a history of this kind of behavior. I don't have the full context so I will just direct quote:

Aquillion:

Tinynanorobots edit-warring

Despite the RFC's conclusion, Tinynanorobots repeatedly edit-warred to remove references to Samurai from the end of the lead. [40][41][42]

WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLUDGEON repetition of issues settled in the RFC

• Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs): [43][44]

Gitz:

Edit war

Tinynanorobots (TR) removed CNN because unreliable source [45] (they also removed one mention of "samurai" - unexplained, tagged as minor edit [46]).

• TR removes: [47][48][49][50][51][52]

It looks like people saw fit to complain about Tinynanorobot's behavior before. I don't really mind but it might be useful to some. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This smacks as a retaliatory grab-bag of anything EE didn't like. The BLUDGEON diffs don't seem to be anything of the kind. The "edit war" doesn't seem to be anything of the sort. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these edits are at all recent. However, the very recent Arbitration case into Yasuke makes it abundantly clear that bludgeoning and feuding are to be avoided here. I would suggest that @Ethiopian Epic would be wise to de-escalate. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are some of the complaints from people about Tinynanorobots. I think it would be good to deescalate too. I don't have strong feelings about any of it or TR. He made multiple threads with wrong claims to see what would stick which feels like a bullying tactic especially because he was edit-warring. So I felt I had to do a response in this one. Currently there is no issue right now I am just waiting for talk page discussion which seems like a good approach. I hope everyone gets along. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock under sustained attack by MidAtlanticBaby

See Category:Requests for unblock and examples at User talk:5.167.250.250, User talk:80.85.151.106, User talk:90.5.100.140, User talk:126.15.241.147, and User talk:201.170.89.89. This is the WP:LTA known as MidAtlanticBaby. I've handled about 25 of these in the past hour or so. In general, my approach is to block the IP address (it's always a VPNgate proxy) for a year without TPA, delete the page and salt it. Anything less, anything less, doesn't work. Anyway, it's too much. This has been going on in various forms for months. I give up and will no longer patrol Category:Requests for unblock until we figure out a way to better handle MidAtlanticBaby, ideally automatically. This isn't me taking my ball and going home, not at all. I simply can't keep up and can't be productive with this garbage sucking all my time and energy. --Yamla (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had so much of your time wasted on that nonsense. You are too valuable an administrator and community member to have to continue with that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bgsu98. Arguably, this discussion should be merged into Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Seeking_opinions:_protection_of_the_help_desk_and_teahouse. If anyone thinks that's accurate, feel free to do so. For me, it's time to go cook supper. :) --Yamla (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to get better at dealing with determined bad actors who have the resources or sophistication to keep switching proxies/VPNs like this. And yes, that has include the WMF going after them in meatspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Its incessant. If the Foundation doesn't clamp down on it forthwith, I'll be following suit with Yamla. Maybe they can cook me dinner.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Has ArbCom raised this with the WMF at all? -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll ask a question to the admins as I truly want to help; do you guys want us to revert the weird edits before the IP is blocked, where it kind of goes back and fourth in reverts, or just leave it there? Considering MAB will read this, feel free to not answer. win8x (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As long at it isn't hugely obscene, leave it and report the IP. Mass mutual reversions do nothing but fill the page history. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. This could be useful to tell people, because right now this fills up the edit filter log, and as you said, page histories. win8x (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Doesn't ptwiki require a login now? We should see how that's working and seriously consider doing the same. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty drastic. Besides, MAB as recently as today, used logged-in accounts to do the usual. Clearing your cookies is easy, so I don't think this would even change anything. win8x (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Per HJ Mitchell above, given the particulars here situation it seems clearly preferable for WMF to take them to court if their identity is known. I know WMF has been questioned recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. Remsense ‥ 论 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you really expect WMF to be able to track down someone using an anonymous peer to peer VPN service designed to evade nation state surveillance and censorship? It's probably better to let Bbb23 (talk · contribs) and other moderators who enjoy routinely blocking people handle it. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not preferable. I meant exactly what I said: if the WMF has that information, they should pursue legal action. If they don't, then obviously that's not an option. Remsense ‥ 论 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They don't have that information. At most, WMF has a few IP addresses that the providing ISPs can possibly track to a relatively small number out of thousands of innocent third parties. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither you nor I know what the WMF knows or does not know. When people play with fire for months or years on end, sometimes they make a mistake. Remsense ‥ 论 03:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They knew exactly who JarlaxleArtemis was and couldn't do shit for decades about him because his ISP and the VPN providers he used refused to play ball. It took him threatening Merriam-Webster to get rid of him via unrelated legal action. I imagine WMF Legal is similarly constrained with MidAtlanticBaby. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano didn't he threaten a senator? I thought that was his downfall. Not that I wish prison on these people, we just want them to go away. Anyway, the climate is changing and ISPs, governments, etc ate increasingly willong to act on online abuse that wouldn't be tolerated in meatspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: It was threatening Merriam-Webster that ultimately did him in, per news reports. (I will not link them per WP:OUTING.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the WMF could do that. As others said, the LTA is using VPNGate, which has an anti-abuse policy here. VPNGate sounds like they would disclose information, provided the WMF's lawyers do something. win8x (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion over on the WP:AN thread about this. Remsense ‥ 论 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

VPNGate doesn't really have that info either. They have the IP address the client connects from. However, if MAB is smart, they are using multiple levels of VPN, anonymous proxies and/or open WiFi access in countries without cooperating legal agreements with the US and other entities where WMF has legal standing. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if MAB is that smart. From what I know, MAB is *probably* from the US. Besides, MAB was blocked by a CheckUser. Yes, it was 5 months ago, but that tells me that he wasn't using a VPN at the time. The WMF themselves could have that information. (Just want to say I have 0 expertise in this and I am maybe saying some bullshit) win8x (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly worth investigating. Remsense ‥ 论 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser isn't a magic bullet as CheckUser blocks are often based on behavioral "evidence". It all comes down to luck and how much time and money WMF wants to spend on a fairly benign troll and if they want to repeat that process for each of the minor vandals out there doing something similar. Or WMF could just force people to login with an account tied to a confirmed email address in order to be able to edit which is the more likely outcome of the community pushing them to take action in cases like this. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't calll MAB "benign". They are more than a troll, they are a vandal and actively try to get extended confirmed so that they can harras an editor they think, wrongly, is responsible for them being blocked. They regularly make death threats against editors and admins who revert their vandalism. They suck up a lot of editor time and are incredibly persistent, easily making dozens and dozens of edits over the course of an hour or two. They are one of the worst sockmasters I've come across in my time here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If that's your concern, I will say I would not be interested in pursuing this if I thought account-only was a remotely possible outcome. It would almost surely be a greater fiasco if you want to think purely cynically about it. Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla, you've checkuser blocked this IP's /64 before, is that still relevant? – 2804:F1...28:4E68 (::/32) (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the comment that started this discussion, it was Yamla saying that they were done dealing with this persistent pest. Can't say I blame them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The IPv6 above is talking about the previous IPv6 commenter. I assume the answer is "not relevant", since the checkuser block on that range predates MAB. -- asilvering (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't directly relevant to MAB, but, assuming the range is static, it may be relevant as to whether their comments in this thread should be taken seriously, especially given that the IP was first blocked for a month as a "self-declared troll" before being re-blocked for six months as a CU block. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they should be taken seriously. See for example, Special:Diff/1169582215. This is a self-declared WP:ANI troll once again returning to WP:ANI. I suggest my previous 6 month block of the /64 wasn't long enough. I have no reason to believe this is MAB operating from this IP address but haven't looked. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, banning him is just adding salt into the wounds, and not solving the current problem itself. I'm so late into this but I feel like my input is the only way that can stop and unban him (and you guys too from doing the ongoing work), and I think by looking through his contributions I can see patterns as to what triggered MAB from what "events" he must've seen, and it was clear that his behaviour was affected by what he'd seen afterwards. Had that "event" not happened he would've otherwise edited productively like a normal editor, but what we don't know yet is what that "event" was, and this is the sort of thing we should ask him about. I think the best way is to follow a similar process I did on Pbritti's Admin election and go through certain links to reverts and comments by other editors (maybe even positive ones too) that may have lead him to doing something unwanted afterwards, and ask him how he felt after he'd seen that "event", and what he'll do differently next time he sees it. Obviously, nobody likes their work being reverted, but a simple undo or something in the comment can be doubly dangerous depending on the person they're reverting or commenting against, as it can lead to undesirable behaviour leading to unwanted sanctions. We just need editors to be more aware of who they're reverting and try and go easy on these editors, and maybe follow a 0-Revert-Rule philosophy if it's an editor that known to cause issues after seeing their work undone; and I believe MAB's case is no exception. If anybody wants to unblock talk page access and try that idea, be my guest, but to also to be aware that certain words may cause him to get upset. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abminor: This has already been attempted and failed by multiple users and administrators. MAB isn't interested in dialogue anymore, if ever he was. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your conception of this situation is deeply troubling. Anyone who makes a single death threat on here is rightfully gone, in all likelihood for good save the remote possibility of seriously compelling contrition on their part. That you are taking MAB's statements at face value and privileging whatever grievances are contained within as if they actually exist in proportion to the damage they're gleefully causing everyone around them is already either totally uninformed or otherwise naïve to the point of negligence. That you think anyone should ever have to be in a community with them again on top of that is delusional. Remsense ‥ 论 10:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That's really sad. Maybe it's dependent on what was in the dialogue that cause him to cancel that out?

As for the death threat, he probably did that because he got instantly stressed by something, and didn't mean to in truth. But OK then, if nobody is brave enough to unblock him then expect to see more threads like these in the future, and more unwanted problems. I'm sorry if I caused anybody stress and made things worse, which wasn't my intention. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

My core point is simply that there is no plausible reading of their behavior as being in good faith or wanting to do anything but damage the project. That they would somehow revert to what we would consider within the bounds of acceptable conduct is inconceivable. Remsense ‥ 论 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking someone because they have caused serious disruption up to the extent of issuing death threats would set an absolutely terrible precedent and would be a green light for other blocked users to cause the same disruption knowing it could get them what they want. We have occasionally unblocked people who have initially thrown a tantrum but later cooled down and shown some contrition but in this case the user is too far beyond the pale and has exhausted users' time and patience so much that there is no good will towards them. Valenciano (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abminor, I assure you that this has been tried and was counterproductive. I don't think there's any way to logic this one, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In their more recent messages they have stated outright that they believe they're entitled to threaten to kill people if they feel like it, and they have left death threats for anyone who has tried to talk to them (at all) for most of this year. So no, trying to understand their point of view is not a workable approach here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

His "work" for the better part of a year has been spending multiple hours a day trying to spam literally every part of the site into submission while making lurid death threats towards everyone on the site who had the misfortune of interacting with him. Anybody who does this for a single day is worthless to have around as a contributor, anybody who does this for multiple months is actively dangerous to everyone else trying to contribute. jp×g🗯️ 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

this is an LTA. what we absolutely should not do is give MAB what they want. they have made countless death threats and spammed dozens and dozens of pages on-wiki, as well as discord, IRC, and UTRS, with their screeds for months upon months now. this is not someone we want on any of our projects, point blank. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds very frustrating, @Yamla, and I'm sorry we don't have better tools available to manage this.

I am trying to move T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter forward. That would allow for AbuseFilter variables that could target specifically edits from VPNgate. We just recently got approval from Legal for implementing this work. There's another task, T360195: Analyze IP reputation data and how it maps to on-wiki editing and account creation activity, which would help us craft more relevant IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter, but we could probably get started with some easy ones (like the proxy name) as that analysis work won't get done until early 2025. If you have any input on what types of IP reputation variables would be useful in AbuseFilters for mitigating this type of abuse, please let me know here or in T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter . KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

KHarlan, a sincere thanks for trying to tackle issues in this area. I'll give it some thought and comment there. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's good to hear that WMF is aware of this general problem and is working on solutions. It's unfortunate that it won't be implemented until next year but, hey, it's better than what we currently have so I wish them luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In order to combat these recidivist socks, I raised the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#CheckUser for all new users but was told it was impossible, so for those of us who write in areas where POV pushing recidivists are active it seems that no relief will ever come. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by GyoergyGajdos on Feynman sprinkler

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

---

New editor GyoergyGajdos on 19 November published two edits (1, 2) (their first ever edits) to the article Feynman sprinkler. Respectively, these added an inappropriate, disruptive, and superfluous use of an external link to the lead and added a GIF to the article (the former they've since dropped; the latter they've decided to re-insert five times and counting (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) after removal). I came across these by complete accident on the same day and reverted them just from casually viewing the page and recognizing glaring problems with them. The external link was to a YouTube short from the channel 'gyorgygajdos1657' featuring the same content as the GIF. The video shows a homemade sprinkler experiment (but this categorically fails WP:UGC and is therefore not verifiably accurate). However, we already have one in 'External links' where it belongs from a much more descriptive, authoritative source, thus obviating it entirely. The GIF is simply the YouTube short, with the exceptions that it's lower-quality and that, in addition to the InShot watermark, there's a transluscent 'Gajdos' watermark across the entire vertical center and a pale orange watermark reading "youtube: Mach-Feynman sprinkler".

The UGC, redundancy to (and much worse quality than) the linked UMD experiment, self-promotional and highly distracting watermarks, disorienting cinematography, extreme amount of extraneous footage (the experiment proper when the motor is running seems to take up 2 seconds at most compared to a 21-second, 5.6 MB GIF), and the fact that it's distracting to the reader with almost zero educational value all stand on their own as reasons not to include this GIF. Taken together, they make this completely obvious. Finally, the GIF is then accompanied by the words "A simple, replicable Mach-Feynman sprinkler experiment is shown here:" in the lead prose – disrupting article flow and indicating a lack of understanding of image layout. Instead of discussing on the talk page or even acknowledging the reversions in their edit summaries, they've kept reinstating this. When discussing this on their talk page and pointing them to the policy on consensus, they made a completely nonsensical rebuttal about "inspirational value", claiming to have a physics degree (even if they do, this is irrelevant; I have a degree, but I can't just insert whatever I want about my field) and referencing low-quality Q&A site Quora. They then proceeded to reinstate the GIF with no acknowledgement of the discussion in the summary. While I initially assumed good faith that they simply did not understand reversions or consensus as a newcomer, when provided ample opportunity to discuss the matter and to read about policy on consensus, they made it abundantly clear they only care about pushing this edit through – at worst, I suspect, potentially wanting to use this as a vector to self-promote their YouTube channel.

I would post this to Dispute Resolution, except that this is a matter of Gajdos' immediate, intractable inability to work cooperatively on this project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that was a collection of characterizations for an educational content 185.237.102.121 (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification 185.237.102.121 is who responded on the talk page, not Gajdos, but the immediacy of the reply and the way they address themselves as though they are Gajdos make it entirely obvious these are one in the same, potentially a simple mistake on Gajdos' part. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one month as a proxy, and I've reverted the named user's last insertion of the YouTube with a final warning to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• The user reinserted the YouTube into the article, so I've indeffed them for disruption. I think I'm within my rights to revert the edit, but in an abundance of caution I have not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

I don't know what you guys are talking about, the video is kind of shitty but it seems to me obviously relevant to the page it was put on. If it has an annoying watermark, surely we can edit it, no? Is there an actual argument for why it must not be there, apart from personal issues with the editor who put it there? jp×g🗯️ 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's because it's user-generated content. - 06:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)

You really readded that incredibly shitty gif to the article after the edit war was stopped by blocking the edit warring SPA and their IP? Any reason why you thought continuing this disruption and making the article worse were a positive contribution? Fram (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and attacks by IP 2.98.156.135

2.98.156.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Making unsourced edits and attacking other users that revert them.[53] Also attacking in response to being warned about this behaviour.[54] Previously used 92.23.235.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNerdzilla (talk • contribs) 01:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the IP's response to the AN/I notice placed on their talk page, calling User:TheNerdzilla a "bigot": diff.

IP also made several personal attacks in an article talk page discussion: diff, as well as once even disrupted the talk page by attempting to remove the declined edit request and replace it with another one asking to basically make the same edit again: diff. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Whatif222 unblock

User:Whatif222 is requesting a review of their undecided unblock request (stale by about a week). They came and visited us on #wikipedia-en-help and I asked some questions about copyright policy (the reason for the block) on their talk page, of which they answered 100% correctly and in their own words. I think they know why it's wrong (they demonstrated this to me), they're really sorry and genuinely a helpful editor beyond copyright issues (as seen by accepted AfC submissions, helpful edits in contributions log) and it's time for a second chance. They've also been so kind and respectful to me and everyone else on IRC. Thanks! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Just adding I'm happy to be a WP:MENTOR for them if that helps tip the scales in the "unblock" direction (I've offered to mentor them regardless on IRC) to help them adjust to the P&G's and work with them on draftified articles and be like a general point of reference for any copyright questions etc.

Also okay with helping them through a "show me 1 fix you would make to improve an article to be unblocked" (I've seen that on some people's talk pages, but forgot the template name) if that's needed.

Thanks again! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 10:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You're looking for {{2nd chance}}, but typically we only require that after blocking someone indef when they've never contributed constructively. This is to have them demonstrate to us that they are willing to put forth the effort to contribute constructively. Their talk page is a tangled mess of warnings about stuff, but I have to think in over a year of contributing that they've been constructive at least most of the time, or would've been blocked sooner. Therefore, I'm not sure this exercise is needed in their case, though obviously you are free to have them go through it if you think it would help them. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

MolecularPilot, I haven't investigated this case but if you want to get the attention of more admins, it's best, in the future, to post unblock requests at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to give Whatif222 one last chance and have unblocked them. I commend MolecularPilot for working with this editor while they were blocked, and offering to mentor. Cullen328 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind for the future! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@MolecularPilot, thanks for stepping in to help this editor out. I'm not totally convinced they won't use LLMs to edit, so if you notice that going on it would be another huge help if you can encourage them away from that. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely! It doesn't look live they've seen that they are unblocked yet but I'll keep an eye on their controls and guide them through returning to editing, as I promised ! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

They were unblocked, and have been reblocked. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

ShawarmaFan07 - Repeated disruptive edits

ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in edit conflicts across various articles, frequently reverting reverts to their bold edits, introducing incorrect information into articles, and WP:SYNTH violations (including inventing quotations). The user has previously received a block for edit warring.

They have received repeated warnings for disruptive editing on their talk page. The user is also currently engaged in various edit wars with @Belbury.

Various diffs: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked ShawarmaFan07 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bbb23 - their behaviour did seem somewhat familiar. I have come across edits from IPs 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:35DB:634A:E688:BEBA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:C831:80B0:5049:BF92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appear to be the same user. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Special:contributions/2A02:C7C:B459:F500:0:0:0:0/64 is quite obvious. They haven't used that range in a couple of months, so I didn't block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 thanks again. 2A02:C7C:75BE:B300:1D2D:5594:24FC:6867 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made some edits this morning, and posted to @Belbury's talk page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that was just LTA User:Lam312321321 (who also seems active as User:90.209.163.218 today). Belbury (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tres Cañon

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

---

... has made over 70 edits, all of which have been adding useless spaces. No clue what they're doing but it's not very helpful. C F A 16:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tres Cañon (talk · contribs) has made around 70 edits which just add white space to articles. All have been reverted, but he's still active after a final warning for editing tests. Dawnseeker2000 16:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked - they are welcome to explain their edits and we can consider an unblock, but this prevents ongoing disruption for now. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a sock of Jocer Blandino and should be globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Iphone5Sgold

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

---

Iphone5Sgold (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice before (March 2022, June 2022) for disruptive editing, primarily failing to update dates when updating athlete stats, but also generally unsourced edits to BLPs. Their talk page is littered with warnings about this, yet they persist. A longer, or even indefinite, block is needed. GiantSnowman 17:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#User:Iphone5Sgold and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Iphone5Sgold. GiantSnowman 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea where they are even getting their information from. Shori Murata is cited only to Soccerway and Soccerway has no info at all on Cambodian appearances - I have subsequently deleted the appearance stats from the infobox for that one. A quick look at their contributions shows that they are adding original research statistics every week and failing to amend the timestamp, despite requests. This is a mix of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they've scored their last own goal and have been red carded out of here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See here. On a related note, shouldn't we put Thomas Lockley under the new Yasuke contentious topic 1RR that Arbcom made? Silverseren^C 18:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for legal threats. I will take a look at the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is definitely related to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm semi-protecting and imposing 1RR for one year. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Odd situation

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

---

A user named CORRECTION100000 is making accusations that main photo for the page Zhu Wen is incorrect and there's some conspiracy involving identity theft around it. They’ve left multiple serious and strongly worded messages insisting that the image does not accurately represent Zhu Wen and appear to have made an account for this issue alone. Given my limited knowledge of early Chinese history, I am not sure of the accuracy of their statements. However, considering the seriousness of the talk page messages, I believe this situation warrants the attention of an administrator. Yedaman54 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Heres the edits and messages made by said user (including when the user left a message warning on the main article page) [63], [64], [65], and [66]. Yedaman54 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Their claims of citogenesis are totally plausible, without further exploration. What is the source of the image in question? Can anyone check that source? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Odd.... is certainly one way to describe this. Calling the possible misidentification of an image of a person who died almost two thousand years ago "identity theft" and claiming it is having real effects on the lives of people today .... needs some explaining at the least, preferably not in the form of YELLING IN ALL CAPS. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Just Step Sideways - Zhu Wen died eleven hundred years ago, not almost two thousand years ago. The principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

yrah, my wath was way off there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. We could also do without anything that seems like an attempt at a legal threat. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I will try to explain. The user who was reported is actually trying to complain that the image is blasphemous or sacrilegious, because it misrepresents a Daoist deity. The reference to the alleged offense as identity theft is probably a linguistic error, which raises competency issues. So an admin can take their pick of whether to block for legal threats, lack of competence, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

RGW was in there too. Blocked, they're welcome to file a compelling unblock request. Image is being handled via typical editorial channels. Star Mississippi 01:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was leaning towards CIR or NOTHERE myself, and their latest replies didn't inspire confidence. Good block. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Complaint Against User:L5boat for Misrepresenting Historical Facts on the Kannappa

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

---

I would like to report User:L5boat for repeatedly altering the content of the Kannappa article to include historically inaccurate and misleading information. Despite providing evidence and engaging in constructive edits, this user continues to manipulate the page in a way that distorts established historical facts. Below are the key points of concern and evidence of these actions:

Issue: Inclusion of "Telugu" Language and Andhra Pradesh: At the time of Kannappa's existence, the language Telugu did not exist in its modern form, nor was the state of Andhra Pradesh created (it was established in 1953). However, Tamil was the predominant language during Kannappa's time, as supported by historical and literary evidence. Associating Kannappa with Telugu and Andhra Pradesh is factually incorrect, misrepresents historical context, and misleads readers.

Motivation: These edits appear to stem from false regional pride rather than adherence to historical accuracy. History should not be rewritten to suit personal or cultural biases. Wikipedia should maintain factual and unbiased information, not speculative or regionally motivated narratives.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1259453931

Actions Taken: I have reverted the inaccurate edits and provided detailed evidence in the edit summaries and talk page discussions to clarify the inaccuracies. I have cited reliable sources and historical references to substantiate my corrections.

Request: I request administrative intervention to address this issue as it disrupts the integrity of the article and violates Wikipedia’s core content policies, including:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The edits introduce bias by promoting a particular regional narrative. Verifiability: The claims made by the user are not supported by credible sources. No Original Research: The edits are speculative and lack historical backing.

I kindly ask that:

A warning be issued to User: L5boat to refrain from adding unsupported and misleading content. The page be monitored or temporarily protected to prevent further manipulation. Any existing false edits be reverted to reflect accurate and verifiable historical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sroheethicloud (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't got time to look at this closely now, but a quick look suggests the word "boomerang" is going to be involved quite quickly. I'll check back later if no-one else has acted. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sroheethicloud as directed at the top of this page, you are supposed to inform the user on their talk page about the discussion. I have done it this time for you. Please remember it the next time you come here. Also, consider signing your comments, everytime. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Shaan!

People who manipulate history often exhibit rudeness, as their actions are driven by false pride rooted in region, language, or caste. I made an effort to avoid confrontation, knowing that individuals with such a mindset often react aggressively or belittle those who challenge their views.

I hope we can honor the legacy of Kannappa Nayanmar. He was a revered Tamil saint and one of the Nayanmars celebrated by Tamil people. The Nayanmars were uniquely chosen within the Tamil Shaivite tradition, and preserving this historical truth is essential. BhajaGovindam (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to the allegations leveled against me, it is Sroheethicloud who has been involved in Wikipedia:POV-PUSH edits. For example, the user insists on using "Kannappan Nayanar," "Kannappan," and "Thinnan" as standard names in the article, but these are merely regional variants. "Kannappa," as the title suggests, is the standard spelling used in academic and media sources.

An important point is that I have added two citations from a scholar on South Indian temples and associated legends, who specifically researched the Srikalahasti temple and Kannappa. The source clearly states: "Its chief was Natha-nàtha. He begot by his wife, Tande, a son, named Tinna. Tinna grew into a fine youth, skilled in archery and interested in hunting." This confirms that Kannappa's birth name is "Tinna." However, Sroheethicloud altered it to "Thinnan," a Tamil variant, completely disregarding the cited material and the original quote on Kannappa's given name.

Similarly, Sroheethicloud added the claim, "He was born around 3102Bc in south India (sic)," which is an absurd and extraordinary assertion. The year 3102 BC corresponds to the early Bronze Age in India, specifically the Neolithic-Chalcolithic period in Southern India. This claim is so extraordinary that it predates all scholarly consensus on the emergence of Saivism itself, which is believed to have developed in the first millennium BC. Despite the implausibility of this claim, it was added directly into the lead section without a single citation, either scholarly or otherwise. I would advise you to review the content added and assess who is actually misrepresenting history here. L5boat (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On Citing M. Rama Rao’s Book:

The citations provided by L5boat are from a single source—M. Rama Rao, a scholar from Andhra Pradesh, whose book was published in 1970. While the book mentions Kannappa, it naturally adopts a regional perspective, using shortened Telugu names or associating Kannappa with Andhra Pradesh, which was created only in 1953.

A single source, especially one that may contain regional biases, cannot be considered definitive when it conflicts with broader historical evidence. Kannappa is well-documented as a Tamil Nayanar saint, and multiple scholarly works, such as Periya Puranam by Sekkizhar and Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints by Vidya Dehejia, emphasize his association with Tamil Shaivism.

On the Claim of 3102 BC:

The assertion that I added the claim about Kannappa’s birth in 3102 BC is entirely false. I urge you to refer back to the revision history of the page, which clearly shows that this claim was added by another editor and not me. This misrepresentation distracts from the actual issue of L5boat’s edits introducing inaccurate Telugu and Andhra Pradesh associations.

On Tamil References at the Srikalahasti Temple:

Anyone who has visited the Srikalahasti Temple will note that the interior walls are engraved in Tamil, consistent with its historical connection to Tamil Shaivism. There is no credible evidence linking Kannappa to Telugu or Andhra Pradesh during his time.

This attempt to overwrite Tamil historical and cultural context with modern regional narratives undermines the integrity of the article and is a form of historical manipulation.

On Name Variants ("Kannappan," "Kannappa," and "Thinnan"):

The names "Kannappan," "Kannappa," and "Thinnan" are standard Tamil variations that appear in multiple Tamil texts, particularly Periya Puranam. The claim that I am altering Kannappa’s name incorrectly is misleading. Rather, I am preserving the accurate Tamil spellings that align with the saint’s origins and historical significance.

My Key Points:

L5boat's reliance on a single source (M. Rama Rao) from Andhra Pradesh is insufficient to support their claims, especially when contrasted with established Tamil references.

Their claim about 3102 BC is baseless and wrongly attributed to me. The revision history clearly shows otherwise.

Historical and physical evidence, such as Tamil inscriptions at the Srikalahasti Temple, firmly ties Kannappa to Tamil culture and Shaivism, not Telugu or Andhra Pradesh.

This repeated manipulation of historical facts, driven by regional bias, violates Wikipedia’s core principles of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability.

I respectfully request administrators to thoroughly review the references and edits in question and take appropriate action to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the article. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

3102bc was introduced by the editor Murthi-inc, not by me.

Diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1258779128 BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On Name Variants

Names are included based on mentions in reliable English-language sources, not regional language sources. This ensures consistency and credibility in representing historical and cultural subjects.

On 3102 BC

The claim of 3102 BC was introduced by Sroheethicloud in [[67]] edit. When the user reverted my changes, he re-added the 3102 BC claim. This highlights the addition of an extraordinary assertion without any credible basis.

On Periya Puranam

I did not alter the content regarding Kannappa being revered in Tamil traditions or his mentions in the Periya Puranam. That content remains unchanged. On the other hand, it was Sroheethicloud who attempted to remove references to Kannappa's reverence in Telugu folklore and Andhra Pradesh, thus excluding significant cultural perspectives. L5boat (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are my citations and references to support the correct name of background of Kannappa Nayanar:

Supporting References for Kannappa’s Tamil Shaivite Background:

1. Primary Sources:
   • Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.
   • Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.
2. Scholarly Articles and Historical Texts:
   • Swami Sivananda: First Ever Eye Donor
   • Basti S., “First Ever Eye Donor: A Lesson From Indian History and Kannappa Nayanar.” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 1994;10(1):56-57. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-19940101-14.
   • Murthy, V.K., 2021. ‘PANCABHŪTA STHALA LIÑGA KṚTIS’OF SRI MUTHUSWĀMY DIKSHITAR. Deśa Kāla Emerging Trends in Performing Arts Vol II, p.32. (Harvard Library Reference).
3. Academic Resources:
   • University of Malaya: Link
   • Kerala University MA Syllabus (Tamil Language and Literature): PDF Link.
   • Journal of American Oriental Society: Gale Link.

I can get more references.

On Name Variants:

Your statement that names are included based on reliable English-language sources rather than regional ones contradicts your reliance on M. Rama Rao’s book. While M. Rama Rao may have written in English, he is undeniably a regional figure from Andhra Pradesh, and his book reflects a regional bias, using Telugu terms and interpretations. This is evident in how it shortens and modifies names to fit a Telugu narrative, disregarding Tamil roots.

In contrast, the historical works of Sekkizhar’s Periya Puranam, Vidya Dehejia’s Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, and other scholarly sources widely document Kannappa as a Tamil Shaivite saint and one of the 63 Nayanmars. These sources, recognized across academic and historical contexts, are far more credible and consistent with established Tamil traditions.

On 3102 BC Claim:

Your claim that I introduced 3102 BC in [edit link 138] is entirely false. I urge you to review the edit history of the article. This claim predates my contributions and was not added by me. Misattributing this to me misrepresents my edits and shifts focus away from the actual inaccuracies in your edits.

On Periya Puranam:

While you claim not to have altered content regarding Kannappa’s reverence in Tamil traditions, your edits have inserted unfounded references to Telugu folklore and Andhra Pradesh, creating a distorted and misleading narrative. Adding Andhra Pradesh—a state that did not exist during Kannappa’s time—alongside Srikalahasti misrepresents historical facts.

Historical records, such as Tamil inscriptions in Srikalahasti Temple, clearly connect it with Tamil cultural heritage. Attempts to impose Telugu associations are speculative and lack evidence. BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you and Sroheethicloud both the same person? L5boat (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sroheethicloud, you're unlikely to get a positive response to a complaint unless you provide diffs/edits of the behavior you are complaining about. You need to provide evidence that editors can review, not just provide a narrative statement of your side of the dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Evidence:

  Inclusion of "Telugu" as Kannappa’s Language:

  L5boat’s Edit: The user replaced Tamil with Telugu as Kannappa’s associated language and added claims linking him to Andhra Pradesh.

  Why This Is Incorrect: At the time of Kannappa’s existence, Tamil was the predominant language in South India. Telugu, as a distinct language, did not exist in its current form during his era. Historical texts, including Periya Puranam and Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints by Vidya Dehejia, clearly identify Kannappa as part of the Tamil Shaivite tradition.

  Relevant Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1259453931

  Citations Supporting Tamil’s Relevance:

  Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.

  Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.

  Association with Andhra Pradesh:

  L5boat’s Edit: The user added references suggesting that Kannappa was "closely connected with Andhra Pradesh" and born in a region that is now Andhra Pradesh.

  Why This Is Incorrect: Andhra Pradesh as a state was created only in 1953. During Kannappa’s time, the region was part of the Tamilakam cultural zone. Linking Kannappa to Andhra Pradesh imposes a modern political boundary onto historical events, which misleads readers.

  Relevant Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1259453931.

  Citations Supporting Tamilakam’s Context:

  Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, ISBN 978-8170901662.

  Examples of Problematic Edits (With Explanations):

  Line 4 Changes:

  Original: "Kannappan Nayanar is a legendary figure in Tamil language and South Indian folklore."

  L5boat’s Edit: Changed "Tamil" to "Telugu" and added "closely connected with the Srikalahasteeswara Temple in Andhra Pradesh."

  Explanation: The replacement of Tamil with Telugu is factually incorrect, as Kannappa’s devotion and inclusion in the Nayanar tradition are rooted in Tamil Shaivism. Srikalahasti was historically part of Tamilakam and not Andhra Pradesh.

  Life and Legend Section:

  Original: Kannappa was identified as a Tamil devotee associated with Tamil Shaivite traditions.

  L5boat’s Edit: Added that Kannappa was from a region "in what is now Andhra Pradesh."

  Explanation: This addition imposes a modern political boundary on an ancient figure. There is no historical basis for linking Kannappa to Andhra Pradesh, as his story is firmly rooted in Tamil traditions.

  Commemoration Section:

  Original: "Kannappa's devotion is revered in Tamil Shaivite traditions..."

  L5boat’s Edit: Added: "Apart from his native state Andhra Pradesh..."

  Explanation: Referring to Andhra Pradesh as his native state is ahistorical and misleading. Kannappa is commemorated exclusively as a Tamil Nayanar.

  Actions Taken:

  I reverted the inaccurate edits and restored references to Kannappa’s Tamil heritage based on reliable sources.

  I provided detailed explanations in the edit summaries and talk page discussions, referencing authoritative texts.

  Request:

  I request administrative intervention to address this issue as it violates Wikipedia’s core content policies:

  Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The edits promote a biased regional narrative.

  Verifiability: The claims are unsupported by credible historical sources.

  No Original Research: The additions are speculative and lack evidence.

  I kindly ask that:

  A warning be issued to User: L5boat to refrain from adding unsupported and misleading content.

  The page be monitored or temporarily protected to prevent further disruptive edits.

  All edits introducing Telugu and Andhra Pradesh associations be reverted to reflect accurate, verifiable information.

  Supporting References:

  Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.

  Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.

  Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, ISBN 978-8170901662. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sroheethicloud & @L5boat it is evident from the page revision history that both of you have engaged in edit warring and none of you have ever tried discussing the dispute on the talk page. Kindly consider that option. Also this seems more of a content dispute. @Liz plz see Talk:Kannappa. The thread heading by Sroheethicloud isn't very civil using the curse word. Maybe something needs to be done regarding that. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz@Shaan SenguptaI have not cursed, I have mentioned inaccurate manipulation will lead to curse for whoever does it, its a belief. I am not cursing here. Sorry if you understood that way. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is it always articles about India/Indian history that seem to cause the most drama and disruption? — Czello ^(music) 09:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

C'mon Czello, everyone knows that the topics that cause the most drama and disruption are (in order): video games, beauty pageants, and "professional" wrestling. What we really need is an article about a video game featuring an intercaste beauty pageant in which contestants beat on one another with folding chairs in a ring. That would really put the fat in the fire. EEng 22:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. India, despite its challenges, stands out when it comes to unity at the district, state, or national level. While caste politics are prevalent and significant in certain states, this is not the case across all of India.

The debate here is about ensuring accurate representation of linguistic identity, not caste. I'm not sure how caste became part of this discussion. India has thousands of castes, yet none of them have compromised on the idea of national identity. This unity amidst diversity is what makes India truly unique. With a population of 1.4 billion, we embrace most major religions, countless castes, several races with historical roots, varying skin tones from North to South, hundreds of languages, and thousands of dialects. Racism, as seen elsewhere, is not a systemic issue in India, though human tendencies to discriminate based on various factors do exist (like everywhere else).

Despite this, Indians have consistently upheld national unity. Please don’t misinterpret or let preconceived notions cloud this reality. Consider other countries with smaller populations that struggle daily with similar issues. Even in the U.S., racism is deeply ingrained in certain states. By comparison, India fares much better in maintaining harmony and unity despite its vast diversity.

Beauty pageant beating each other with chairs from different castes, is a pettiest and lowest thought anyone can think of when it comes to India. BhajaGovindam (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to mention India's long history as an exemplar of religious harmony. EEng 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bcoz ppl here in India are very sensitive about their religious, cultural and linguistic identity. That's it. Coming to the dispute. This clearly is a content dispute and shouldnt be discussed here. Please go to the article talk page or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and sort it out. Also I don't find anything wrong in mentioning present day Andhra Pradesh. This is how we mention locations to ease it out for readers. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with saying, Present Day Andhra Pradesh.

What L5boat had modified was as below (L5boat clearly calling out Kannappa's native state as Andhra Pradesh):

Apart from his native state Andhra Pradesh, Kannappa's devotion is also revered in Tamil Shaivite traditions. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: Your comments here are a violation of the topic ban from WP:ARBIPA that you agreed to as an unblock condition. Please disengage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'd point out that the long-running version of this article didn't mention Tamil or Telugu in the lead paragraph, it was only introduced earlier this year and then persistently edit-warred over. For example, this revision. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a content issue. Both of you, talk about it civilly (i.e. without the subheading that is there now) at Talk:Kannappa rather than edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. My sources of references:

  Supporting References for Kannappa’s Tamil Shaivite Background:

  1. Primary Sources:
     • Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.
     • Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.
  2. Scholarly Articles and Historical Texts:
     • Swami Sivananda: First Ever Eye Donor
     • Basti S., “First Ever Eye Donor: A Lesson From Indian History and Kannappa Nayanar.” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 1994;10(1):56-57. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-19940101-14.
     • Murthy, V.K., 2021. ‘PANCABHŪTA STHALA LIÑGA KṚTIS’OF SRI MUTHUSWĀMY DIKSHITAR. Deśa Kāla Emerging Trends in Performing Arts Vol II, p.32. (Harvard Library Reference).
  3. Academic Resources:
     • University of Malaya: Link
     • Kerala University MA Syllabus (Tamil Language and Literature): PDF Link.
     • Journal of American Oriental Society: Gale Link.

  • Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.
  • Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.
  • Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, ISBN 978-8170901662.

  BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Most of it is already present in the article and I have retained them in my edits. L5boat (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger

  Even after all these discussions, L5boat has again modified the content without coming to an agreement. BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you and Sroheethicloud the same person? L5boat (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I created a topic, and we want a resolution. I respected your opinion and decision, however L5boat again going on with his version of the story.

  Can L5boat changes be reverted?

  Link to the Topic:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kannappa#Ensuring_Neutral_Representation_of_Kannappa%E2%80%99s_Cultural_and_Historical_Context BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to discuss, then fine. The current version is neutral as it does not mention any language and only refers to South Indian folklore. It also does not specify Andhra Pradesh as the native state. References to the Periya Puranam and Tamil Nayanmars are included. It is the most neutral version among recent edits. What else is needed? L5boat (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  If this is the most neutral approach, why was the original image on the page removed?

  Here is the diff for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1256990097

  The image was sourced from the Thanjavur Museum (Source: https://vmis.in/ArchiveCategories/collection_gallery_zoom?id=859&search=1&index=51556&searchstring=deer ).

  How can anyone have such authority over a public resource like Wikipedia to make unilateral decisions? Why is there such bias that all original references to Tamil Nadu, including this historical artifact, are being removed? What justification is there for disregarding Tamil heritage? Even today, Tamil invocations are performed at temples like Tirumala, Srikalahasti, and Tiruchendur—temples originally built by the Pallavas and Cholas, and later expanded by the Vijayanagara empire. It’s worth noting that even the Vijayanagara rulers, despite their contributions, did not attempt to alter the historical significance of these temples or erase their Tamil roots. BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. You can re-add that image. It seems to have been lost during previous edits. I have no issue with including it. L5boat (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I re-added the image. Its removal was inadvertent on my part. L5boat (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

It's pretty tedious seeing yet another of these obvious ChatGPT report templates being used to litigate a content dispute again. Suggest a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Sroheethicloud, are you or are you not the same person as BhajaGovindam, a name which seems to have been designed only to hide your user identity; a question which has been asked twice before in this thread? We need an answer. Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation opened. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So the BhajaGovindam signature links all point to Sroheethicloud's user page. Furthermore there is no registered user at BhajaGovindam. I guess this is not technically sock-puppetry as there's only one account. It is, however, very odd that this user is manually changing their signature to a non-existent account. Between this, the ChatGPT "report" template, and the obvious time-wasting AN/I report for a clear edit dispute I'd suggest WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I closed the report as in error. That explains my problems in getting the report fields to populate properly. I'll let a more experienced admin decide on what to do in this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

My username was originally Sroheethicloud, but I had renamed it to BhajaGovindam because Sroheethicloud was simply a user ID and didn't make sense. Is this an issue? This is how Wikipedia is designed—it allows users to rename their accounts, and it doesn't automatically then change the user ID and account name to sync. I use only log in ID to log in. BhajaGovindam (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

My username was originally Sroheethicloud, but I had renamed it to BhajaGovindam because Sroheethicloud was simply a user ID and didn't make sense. Is this an issue? This is how Wikipedia is designed—it allows users to rename their accounts, and it does then change the user ID and account name to remain the same. BhajaGovindam (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you make a rename request? Just changing your signature does nothing to the user name. See WP:UNC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. I will request for a rename. Thank you for letting me know. BhajaGovindam (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water.... Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I've summoned the energy to read through this again. My advice to both parties:

1. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be used for the dispute. This is inherently a dispute about what should be in the article.
2. LLM-generated text insults the readers, as it makes it seem the person didn't put personal effort into writing a reasonable response.
3. Walls of text are counterproductive.
4. Getting mad at someone who disagrees with you is counterproductive.
5. The longer a discussion lasts on this noticeboard, the less likely it is to be productive. I suggest disengaging here and working together under one of the processes listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
6. If another more experienced admin believes action needs to be taken, I defer to them.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have an agreement with the editor L5boat now, and the article has been kept neutral. As far L5boat doesn't go about editing again by bringing in regional bias, we can close this dispute. BhajaGovindam (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Your first sentence was very good. However, your second sentence shows that you are not adhering to an important principle: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your editing career here could be short if you continue to make assumptions about other editors' motivations. This is a warning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I adhere going forward. Assume good faith! BhajaGovindam (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic! Not only will it make it easier to navigate through disputes, it should increase your enjoyment here, because with that attitude, you are working with colleagues, not adversaries. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate your support and help reviewing the content and disputes to keep Wikipedia great! BhajaGovindam (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behaviour by DarthRad

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

---

User DarthRad (talk · contribs) has been extremely uncivil. He made edits to Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird and left derogatory comments on the talk page at Talk:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Correction_of_Factual_Error_about_Acquisition_of_Titanium. I disagreed with a substantial part of his edit, so I reverted him, as per WP:BRD and contributed to the discussion in a civil and constructive manner. DarthRad undid multiple reverts from myself and other editors and left more derogatory comments. He was specifically hostile to me and was not willing to let any of his edit be undone or changed in any way. He refuses to back down on any point and continues to leave derogatory remarks, including on my talk page (see [68]) and his own talk page (see User_talk:DarthRad#November_2024). He was banned for 48 hours but when it expired he continued in the same manner. He has been advised many times to be more civil. He has had WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL explained to him multiple times at length but apparently believes that any change to his edits is vandalism and labels it as such loudly.  Stepho  talk  08:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs, the more diffs you can provide, the easier it is to evaluate your complaints. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

His original edit to the article was not uncivil. However, his talk page comments were quite uncivil:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1257947618&oldid=1236289841 His first entry on SR-71 talk page.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1257955879&oldid=1257953038 His reply to me.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStepho-wrs&diff=1257956361&oldid=1255582219 His message on my talk page
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1258931521&oldid=1258008061 His first reply after his 48 hour ban expired.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarthRad&diff=1258970114&oldid=1257956796 His comments about me on his own talk page.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1258963170&oldid=1258946681 His reply after being advised to be civil.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1259423787&oldid=1259102024 His reply to constructive suggestions.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1259455254&oldid=1259440881 His reply to further constructive suggestions and my warning that I would report him if he called me a vandal again.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1257955082&oldid=1257953173 An undoing of a revert to the SR-71 article. The edit summary had to be removed (I do not know what the comment was).

The comment let on my talk page was removed by another editor (administrator?) but all other comments can be read on the SR-71 talk page and his own talk page in the context that they were written.  Stepho  talk  10:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea who (if anyone) is right about the underlying content issue, but can see that DarthRad has not been editing in a constructive way. If you can't talk about things civilly and on the basis of reliable sources then a block seems to be the only possibility. And it doesn't matter what expertise someone may claim: we have no way of checking anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On User talk:DarthRad#November 2024, DarthRad said, "I don't believe that screaming at a Vandal for Vandalism is a Bad Thing or Unjustified." Screaming at anyone is a Bad Thing. Ultimately, Stepho solved the conflict despite DarthRad's ranting, not because of it. Toughpigs (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked DarthRad for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Ranting and raving and making false accusations of vandalism are unacceptable behaviors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Zhenghecaris

Zhenghecaris (talk · contribs · logs) is continuing to add fringe theories on Wikipedia. For more detail, it is better to see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Precambrian_chitons_and_another_reports_by_Mark_McMenamin, this user added information about taxa that is described by Mark McMenamin but no other researchers are confirmed, which is against WP:FRINGE. I warned this user multiple times, and in that discussion this user answered that "Okay I will not add information on taxa described by McMenamin". However, this user continued that, created article of Kimberellomorpha which includes taxa described by McMenamin (Zirabagtaria), with uploading copyright violated images (File:Zirabagtaria_fossil.jpg which is sourced "YouTube", this user previously uploaded bunch of copyvio images, (Commons:User_talk:Zhenghecaris) even through I warned (User_talk:Zhenghecaris#Stop_copyright_violation)). The article describes Zirabagtaria as a "fringe taxon", but this has no meaning. Because it has not been studied by anyone other than McMenamin, and there are no positive or negative comments from other researchers, the term "fringe" should not even be listed on Wikipedia, and the best option is to ignore it completely. This edit in Kimberella ([69]) seems kind of vandalism to be honest, as this user does not know how to edit well. This user does not learn. They should be blocked, at least in paleontology topics. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that this user left comment on user talk of Commons administor, claiming the image is permissioned. (c:User_talk:Yann#Zirabagtaria) This has no meaning as it does not provide any evidence, and it still violates WP:FRINGE. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged some Commons contributions for deletion there and nominated a redirect here for RfD. Could you please provide diffs of the warnings given to Zhenghecaris, with dates, as well as offending edits occurring after those warnings. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is when I warned stop copyright violation.[70] Commons image was uploaded after that. For fringe theory, that discussion shown above resulted not to do that, although it may not warning. But anyway this is the edit when this user added about Zirabagtaria after discussion.[71] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The second diff you've provided doesn't mention "Zirabagtaria". voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this is one edit added about Zirabagtaria in Kimberella article[72] and previous edit[73] added McMenamin's book as reference. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you provide evidence? Zhenghecaris (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The deletion tags placed on several of your contributions there contain instructions for doing so.

Regarding your edits on Wikipedia, @Zhenghecaris, you have created some articles and drafts about things that you acknowledge are "fringe". Do you believe that these fringe taxa exist? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion's disruptive behaviour at the recent Talk:Australia RfC

Brusquedandelion is a generally constructive editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct, but they show a lack of restraint when it comes to (perceived or actual) ideological differences and are prone to lashing out against other editors. Brusquedandelion has previously been brought to AN/I for exactly that reason and continued to do so briefly on their talk page after the AN/I notice. They have recently engaged in similar conduct at the recent Talk:Australia RfC, and that behaviour is my reason for creating this.

The RfC was started by OntologicalTree, a confirmed sockpuppet of KlayCax. OT was blocked one week ago from today, so the RfC was able to run its course. Brusquedandelion was quite disruptive and less than civil throughout the RfC, bludgeoning the process and throwing personal attacks at every reply to the RfC that supported or discussed anything directly contrary to OT's proposed option (myself included).

Talk:Australia diffs:
"Please tell us what your actual objection is rather than using word count as a shield."
"It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is... It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this."
"The best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension."
"Your claim that this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water."
"Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required."
"If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED."
"And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies."
"I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out."

This report is already getting quite long, so I'll leave it at this for now. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that @Brusquedandelion has engaged in battleground behavior and engaged in personal attacks. Because they are otherwise a constructive editor, I propose a three-month topic ban from all edits related to colonialism and genocide, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this proposal. While Brusquedandelion is a capable, competent, and generally constructive editor, they have demonstrated their inability to remain civil while discussing topics of colonialism and genocide, and I believe their efforts would be best focused outside of these topics for a while. Having strong feelings on a topic is not necessarily bad in of itself, but it's how those feelings manifest themselves through the person's actions that can cause problems. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In the thread, you stated that you are sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. It's pretty clear from this comment that you are unable to maintain a position of objectivity on topics relating to "colonialism and genocide." Or perhaps only ones relating to Australia, I don't know. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If a comment like Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity is not indicative of a battleground mentality by someone who is quite possibly WP:NOTHERE, what is? This comment was made by @Sirocco745 who filed this report. They are clearly motivated by some sort of grievance politics (of a racial nature) by their own admission. They followed this up by admitting that I could, if I wanted, call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so. Their words!

You might feel my response was heavy-handed. Ok. But note that per the usual rules and conventions of an ANI post, a reporter's own conduct is also subject to scrutiny. Did you not read the thread, or did you not think this was worthy of taking into account? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me that all of their edits happening on Talk:Australia by Brusquedandelion occurred on Nov. 9th and haven't continued since. Have there been any personal attacks since that date or that have spilled over to other articles or talk pages? Of course, personal attacks are not acceptable but before imposing a wide-ranging topic ban, I'd like to see if this is an isolated incident on this one day in this one discussion on this one talk page or are occurring more broadly. I also would like to hear from Brusquedandelion on this matter for their point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No, nothing since then. They made four more replies on the RfC after being politely but firmly asked to reign it in by @Moxy and @Aemilius Adolphin at this reply here. The discourse hasn't bled out of the RfC/talk page, and they've been relatively quiet for the past two weeks.

Only thing I can think of that could count would be Brusque replying to my original attempt at settling this without needing to bring it to a noticeboard. They previously said I sounded like I was "channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes" on the RfC, and when I mentioned this in my original notification, their only response was to link Cecil Rhodes's article. Reply found here. Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Worth counting as further discourse outside of the RfC? Not really. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thinking a stern warning and explanation of the community norms..... unless there's some sort of pattern of behavior here? It's a contentious topic.... that many people feel has a tone of racism involved. Just need to explain they need to tone it down. Moxy🍁 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to raise an issue of possible canvassing. I was going to leave a message on @Brusquedandelion's talk page about their behaviour when the ruckus started when I found this odd message. It looks like someone was alerting them to the discussion on the Australia talk page and feeding them with talking points.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1255261107 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That was also KlayCax. CMD (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the sockpuppet User:DerApfelZeit went around to a lot of articles in contentious areas and then to user talk pages, trying to stir things up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not asked to be canvassed. I don't know this person, and given they're banned already I am unsure what the relevance is here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevance, Brusquedandelion, was the consideration that maybe their comments provoked your response on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

OP has posted a bunch of comments above, but the actual reason they are reporting me is because of my comment comparing their views to those of Cecil Rhodes. They didn't feel the need to file this report until they posted on my page, including a comment about how they don't know who Rhodes was. I replied only with a link to his Wikipedia page. In a sense, this is probably their strongest case against me, so I am not sure why they didn't mention it in the original post. Perhaps it has to do with the reason I invoked this comparison: OP made a vile series of remarks about aboriginal Australians in which they referred to them and their culture as uncivilized, that one can't trust a treaty signed with non-English speaking indigenous peoples, and that hunter gatherer peoples are not worthy of political or moral consideration. These are all sentiments Cecil Rhodes would have affirmed. Perhaps this qualifies as a personal attack by the letter of the law here at Wikipedia, but talking about Aboriginal Australians this way is against upwards of half a dozen Wikipedia policies. OP will claim, as they did at my page, that I am casting aspersions, but they have actually explicitly admitted they are motivated by racial grievance politics; more on this point later. First, OP's comment that resulted in the comparison, for the record:

the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially Th government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.

Anyone familiar with the official justifications for colonial policies, past and present, will hear their echo here. The fairly explicit claim that the aboriginals are uncivilized is the most egregious remark here, but the entire comment is rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists, not on Wikipedia. These ideas about native peoples (in Australia and elsewhere) have been summarily refuted in the scholarly literature on this subject, but regrettably despite their repugnance they persist in popular culture in many nations. If any admin feels I need to back up this claim with sources, I will oblige, as fundamentally grim as it is that such views even need to be debunked.

Some further comments from OP:

The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

Apparently, it is NPOV to take a dim view of colonization. Does OP have a favorable view of colonialism, in particular in the Australian context? A question left for the reader.

Finally, OP is manifestly, by their own admission in the thread, motivated by a politics of racial grievance. First, they tell us that As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted. Make no mistake, this issue is personal, and OP has found their WP:BATTLEGROUND. Then they inform us:

Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

These comments speak for themselves, since OP is themself admitting their prejudices. Even if OP were right ("Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" etc. etc.), this just isn't the website for it; see inter alia WP:RGW and WP:NOTAFORUM.

Returning to what OP has quoted above, the vast majority of my alleged bludgeoning consists of reminding people what the substantive issue at stake is: whether to classify these events as genocide. The RFC was somewhat poorly worded, unfortunately, but there's not much to do about that now. The effect was that a number of replies did not explicitly admit a stance on the core issue, but nevertheless voted against the use of the "genocide" label.

I would prefer a straightforward discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of the use of this word. It would have made the RFC much more productive. A number of people essentially dodged the core issue on their vote altogether, and I thought this merited being pointed out. I admit I was strident, but I don't think any of my comments about this issue were especially uncivil. I also removed myself from the discussion as soon as people said I was commenting too much. I didn't feel need the need to continue this on anyone's talk page nor over here at ANI.

OP did, however, likely expecting an apology when they posted to my talk page, and reporting me when none was forthcoming. So:

I apologize for my stridency to the community at large. I will make an effort to regulate my tone in future discussions. I do not feel this thread is representative of my general conduct here, and I will certainly make an effort to not let it be the standard I set for my comments in future discussions. I was frustrated by an apparent refusal by certain folks to actually discuss the core issue, but there are more skillful ways I could have gone about this. And I was especially frustrated by certain comments, in particular those of OP, that affirm colonial stereotypes and ideologies.

I do not feel an apology is owed to OP until such time as they own up to the racism of their remarks. With regards to possible sanctions, I don't see how you can argue my criticizing OP's racism, even if I had been ten thousand times ruder about it, would be less civil or worse for Wikipedia's project as a whole than OP's remarks about aboriginal Australians, motivated as they are by racial grievance politics, per their own confession. Said confession also seems like a much stronger argument for a topic ban in particular, compared to anything I have said, since they have admitted an inability to retain neutrality in such discussions, as well as a particularly noxious reason for that inability—though I am only bringing this up since OP themself has asked for this sanction against me. Personally I only hope that OP realizes why such comments are unacceptable, that no one is witch-hunting him or his people, and that such ideologies have no place here anyways. It seems they are otherwise a constructive editor, and if they are able to make a good faith acknowledgement of this lapse, I wouldn't see any need for sanctions against them personally. Of course, all of this is up to the admins. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion: you've accused someone of racism. Please provide diffs or quickly withdraw your claim, or expect to be blocked for a serious personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment? It has verbatim quotes that can be found in the linked discussion (Talk:Australia); as far as I can tell, nothing has been edited or archived. Are you an admin and if so is this a formal request for a diff specifically? Because if not please do not go around threatening people with blocks for not providing information they already provided. I am really quite busy today, but if an administrator is formally making this request, I will oblige. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You always need to provide diffs when you make such allegations, whether asked to or not. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why diffs are important, as they provide context. The first two quotes come from Diff 1, and the last quote comes from Diff 2. I'm no expert, but statements like I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done. (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism. In context, I get the impression of trying to preserve historical context, not proving the OP's racism alleged by BD above.

Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1). I also was unable to find any mention of the statement BD put in quotes as "Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" on the talk page; I presume these were scare quotes.

If there is missing context or background, BD would be well-advised to provide it. Most of us are laypersons and will likely miss more subtle types of racism, if that is what is alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I may have come off as confrontational with my comments in the RfC, and I apologize for that. I have always accepted that Wikipedia is not the place to air personal or political grievances and have done my best to keep to that policy, but I slipped when replying to the RfC. My motto is "don't let your motive be your message", but I forgot to keep my personal feelings out of the discussion this time.

First up though, the reason why some of my comments were rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists is because I was presenting the views of 19th century British imperialists. These views are horribly outdated and illogical based in emotional fallacy, but because I was (probably over)explaining the racist reasonings the British justified their actions with, many of my comments in the RfC could be used to support BD's claim of racism when taken out of context.

In hindsight, "The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT" wasn't the best way to word my disproval of Option 1. In relation to the RfC, Option 1's rhetoric is that the wounds are still fresh. The problem is that while the damage is still felt, the wounds themselves aren't really fresh at all; Option 1 covers almost 200 years worth of events in a single paragraph and insinuates that they all happened at/around the same time. This is why I pushed against Option 1 and explained British actions and motives.

@Brusquedandelion, I would also like to deny your claim that I started this AN/I thread because of your actions against me specifically. I assume that you've read the opening sentences of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I included it in my initial attempt at reaching out.

"On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."

The large number of diffs that show you being uncivil towards multiple editors in the RfC were always going to be the reason this came to AN/I, not your comments against me. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion or blanked the page in good faith. The following explanation was offered: Accidentally created a duplicate AfD.. See CSD G7." over at Wikipedia:XfD today and other pages

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

---

Hi all,

This should most probably be over at WP:AN, but WP:AN/I is more visible, and this could probably be quickly fixed by any editor, as it appears to be some sort of Wikipedia:Transclusion thingy

Affected pages as of 9:50 AM UTC appear to include:

• Wikipedia:XfD_today#Iddaru_(2024)
• User:Abishe/AFD#Iddaru_(2024)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_November_26#Iddaru_(2024)

As far as I can see, this is related to a post somewhere by Sudheerbs, who I'll notify with me next edit.

Please feel free to rename this thread "Yet more gross incompetence by Shirt58 - how is this guy even an Admin?"

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl, CycloneYoris, and Sudheerbs: Thank you for your responses! Looks like this issue is pretty much resolved. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Dantai Amakiir using personal attacks to restart contentious arguments

• Complaint against: Dantai Amakiir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Issued by: CeltBrowne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Black Irish (folklore) and its talk page Talk:Black Irish (folklore) has, by far, been the most contentious subject I've been involved with in numerous years of editing Wikipedia. The vast majority of what I'm involved in on Wikipedia has been pleasant and mundane. With this topic however I've found the heated and lengthy arguments on the talk page extremely draining, and as a result, I made the conscious decision earlier in the year to reduce my involvement with the article and focus my efforts elsewhere on Wikipedia. My User contributions page can demonstrate that while I remain highly active on Wikipedia since then, it has been in other areas.

Last night, I made my first edit to Black Irish (folklore) in 6 months, in what I believe is a fairly non-continuous edit [74], in which some content was moved to a new subsection was created, and some uncited material was tagged (not removed) with a CN template. Following this edit, User:Dantai Amakiir accused me of trolling and of WP:Ownership in this comment [75]. I believe these comments to be personal attacks and non-constructive, as no attempts has been made to outline how things should be done differently or even what was wrong with the edit. They also did not attempt to "correct" my edit with an edit of their own. Additionally, I believe the only purpose of these comments is to restart past arguments.

Dantai Amakiir has been previously asked by other users to stop making personal attacks against me, such as by User:Bastun in Talk:Black Irish (folklore)/Archive 1#NPOV, Misrepresented Sources etc. In that same thread, Dantai Amakiir accused me of gross misrepresentation and manipulation of sources (which I believe is a very serious accusation to level against another user). A thorough investigation by User:Boardwalk.Koi found that not to be the case, and that what I had written was in a good faith and did not suffer from POV issues. No apology, retraction or conciliatory comment was offered thereafter. Dantai Amakiir continued to make accusations on the same talkpage against me thereafter, such as an WP:Ownership claim, but I purposely did not engage.

While making the accusation that I am effectively "sitting" on the article; I will note that Dantai Amakiir has had very little engagement on Wikipedia other than this topic in the last year.

The purpose of talk pages is to outline what specific changes can be made to the article to improve it, not hurl insults at other users who you disagree with. I have disengaged greatly from this article, however, I do not believe Dantai Amakiir should be allowed bully me off the article completely and be allowed to make continuously make personal attacks rather than outlining how the article could be improved.

I would ask that an Administrator reprimand Dantai Amakiir for those personal attacks, and direct them to making constructive feedback instead. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

CeltBrowne, there is a very large and hard to miss notice whenever you edit this page telling you to notify the editor(s) you are referring to; you have not done so. I have just notified Dantai Amakiir for you; please do not neglect this if you come to ANI again. Thanks ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologises; I had an appointment earlier today and wrote the above in a bit of a rush so that I could make it in time. I won't make the same mistake again. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and WP:NPA actions by IP

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

---

197.91.18.157 (talk · contribs) has consistently placed WP:FORUM and WP:NPA edits throughout their edit history. See these particularly WP:NOTHERE insertions:

• [76]
• [77]
• [78]
• [79]
• [80]

Borgenland (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I have blocked the IP for one week for an obvious WP:BLP violation at Talk: Christopher Langan, plus WP:NOTAFORUM behavior and uncollaborative belligerence. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Bias, Page Vandalism and Edit-Warring on the Hamis Kiggundu Page

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

---

Dear Administrators,

I have been closely studying the edit patterns on the Hamis Kiggundu page and have observed persistent edit warring, bias, and obstruction against updates or constructive contributions to the article. These patterns, primarily led by a specific user, Timtrent, have hindered the development of the page and undermined Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality, collaboration, and open editing. Below are my key concerns, supported by Wikipedia’s edit history:

• Persistent Disputes on Edit Requests

Since the page was extended-confirmed-protected in June 2024 (following Timtrent’s request after another editor restored the featured image, which had been removed due to reverts by Timtrent and others to a 2021 version), Timtrent has consistently opposed all edit requests, regardless of their compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

The current two edit requests, both well-referenced and policy-compliant, are being disputed without valid reasoning. These disputes discourage collaboration, prevent timely updates to the page, and undermine the spirit of inclusivity seen in other prominent figures' pages globally.

• Disruptive Behavior and Vandalism

In June 2024, Timtrent, along with another user, Davey2010, removed several edits, including the featured image, which had been part of the article for three years. These actions erased valuable contributions and disrupted the page’s integrity.

Additionally, Timtrent tagged several contributors for suspected sockpuppetry. However, a CU check found no evidence to support these claims, suggesting an attempt to intimidate and stifle legitimate contributions.

• Labeling Ugandan Mainstream Media as Churnalism

Timtrent has consistently dismissed Ugandan mainstream media sources by labeling their reports as "churnalism." This dismissive attitude disregards the fact that when something notable happens, it is widely reported in local media. If Ugandan mainstream media Houses such as New Vision, Daily Monitor, NBS TV, Uganda Radio Network, NTV Uganda, among others, are deemed unreliable, should editors wait for the time international outlets such as BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, or The New York Times to report on Ugandan topics/Subjects before making updates? should all articles based on reports from those media houses be removed/reduced as Hamis Kiggundu was done? Such a standard marginalizes local perspectives and undermines the representation of Ugandan topics on Wikipedia. This approach violates Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources, which recognizes the validity of reputable local media. If applied universally, this bias would force most Ugandan articles to revert to outdated content from 2020 or earlier as the case was done with this.

• Misuse of Paid Editing Allegations

While paid editing is permissible when disclosed and compliant with guidelines, Timtrent has however weaponized this policy by broadly accusing editors of being undisclosed paid contributors or spammers (For the Disclosing ones). This subject is already broadly notable, his notability is far beyond the Wikipedia criteria and requirements but According to Timtrent, anyone editing the page is either a non-disclosing paid editor or a paid spammer, a justification he used when removing three years of contributions in June 2024. This tactic creates a hostile environment, discourages good-faith contributions, and obstructs necessary updates to the page.

• Impact on Contributors and the Article

Due to these actions, many editors now refrain from contributing to the Hamis Kiggundu page for fear of being falsely accused or blocked. As a result, the page remains outdated, with most content dating back to 2020 or earlier, despite significant developments regarding the subject.

• Conflict of Interest and Open Bias

Timtrent’s actions display open bias against the Hamis Kiggundu page and the subject itself, creating unnecessary barriers to constructive editing. These actions are in direct contravention of Wikipedia’s purpose and its Terms of Use, which emphasize neutrality and collaboration.

Where necessary, I request that Timtrent recuse themselves from the Hamis Kiggundu page due to their demonstrated conflict of interest, bias, and repeated obstruction of updates to the page.

• Request for Administrator Action

To address this issue and uphold Wikipedia’s principles, I kindly request the following:

• Review Timtrent’s Conduct: Evaluate whether their edit disputes, labeling of Ugandan media, and accusations align with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and reliable sources.
• Assign Neutral Editors: Appoint impartial administrators or editors to review the edit requests and ensure fair treatment of contributions to the page.
• End Edit Wars and Bias: Take appropriate measures to put an end to the edit-warring and biased campaign against updates to the Hamis Kiggundu article.

• If necessary, Reassess Extended Protection: Revisit the necessity of extended-confirmed-protection on this page, as it appears to have been weaponized to suppress legitimate contributions.

Broader Implications This situation highlights a broader issue affecting Ugandan topics on Wikipedia, where local sources are dismissed, and updates are obstructed due to similar biases. I urge administrators to ensure that Wikipedia remains a collaborative and inclusive platform for representing all subjects, regardless of geographic or cultural origin.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Wikipedia’s edit history serves as sufficient evidence to support these concerns, and I look forward to your intervention to resolve this issue. Proedin (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Proedin: Per the ToU you agree to when contributing here, you need to disclose who is paying your if you want to contribute here especially when you are opening ANI threads. If you are unwilling to do that, then don't contribute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention drop the use of ChatGPT in lieu of legitimate communication. JayCubby Talk 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

United States Man's WP:BOLD edits and redirects

So this has been happening for a while now, with a long track record of reverted bold edits which peaked today. United States Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has constantly been doing WP:BOLD things and reverting others when challenged:
1. November 2023: Was blocked for edit warring.
2. May 2024: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado: User said in the nomination The author also recently started 2024 Sulphur tornado, which was overwhelming merged; violation of WP:READFIRST. Reason for nomination was “article is a CFORK”, and the article ended up being kept. Funny enough, this user would literally say "You should focus on the content and not the editor" to someone else just twelve days later when someone pointed out their controversial moves.
3. May 2024: Edit warring on December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak; the article had to end up being protected as a result.
4. October 2024: Bold redirected 2011 Lake Martin tornado without consensus before merging it without attribution or consensus.
5. Today: Redirected a 20,000-byte article with the edsum "revert CFORK", and when I challenged this they called it "disruptive edit warring". See 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado.
6. Today: Again redirected a 20,000-byte article with the edsum "revert CFORK", and when I challenged this they called it "disruptive edit warring". See 2011 Central Alabama tornado.
7.Today: Was reverted after boldly removing material, where they then proceeded to revert the challenge.
This behavior clearly won't be stopping soon, so bringing it here. Also see their recent edit summaries, I’m now on mobile so I can’t fetch the diffs. E_F⁵ 20:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can tell, United States Man's reverts look far more like "disruptive edit warring" than the OP's challenges to find consensus, which strike me as reasonable. Noting for the record that I reviewed and approved a DYK nomination for one of the articles (Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Cullman–Arab tornado, which is currently in a prep area). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Editing behavior: Myself and United States Man have "butt heads" several times over the last few years, even with both of us earning edit warring blocks during our edit wars in the past. However, this is a very much editing behavior that is very clearly not good. United States Man has a habit of taking a Wikibreak and upon returning from the Wikibreak, immediately reverts edits without any consensus or discussions. Here is a list of these specific instances:

1. Wikibreak October 19, 2024 to November 26, 2024 – First six edits on November 26 were all edit warring/reversions: [81][82][83][84][85][86]
2. Wikibreak September 19, 2024 to October 10, 2024 – First edit was to start an AFD.
3. May 17, 2024 to May 23, 2024 – Commented in an ongoing discussion "Oppose" to something being included in an article and then proceeded to remove it 1 minute later. This day also included several reverts from page moves to edit warring reverts. The edit warring reverts were discussed (mid-edit warring) on the talk page.
4. May 8, 2024 to May 15, 2024 – Several reversions with no talk page discussions, including this edit entirely deleting a 45,000 byte article with "redirect recently created content fork" with no discussion and deleting a 23,000 byte article, with no discussion, only a few minutes earlier.
5. February 29, 2024 to March 11, 2024 – Came back to editing by immediately reverting. March 11 included 3 article-content reversions, with no article talk page discussions occurring, along with the merge of an 11,000 byte article.
6. February 25, 2024 to February 28, 2024 – First edit back on Feb 28 was a reversion.
7. December 19, 2023 to February 10, 2024 – First edit back was an editing-reversion (not revert button click), with the editing summary of "the first tornado was obviously the EF1…". The day included several button reverts including [87][88] before any talk page discussion edits occurred.
8. November 3, 2023 to November 21/22, 2023 – Came back to editing with several reversions and within about 36 hours of coming back to editing, got into an edit war with myself, which earned both of us edit warring blocks over 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado.

I can continue going down the list, but this is a clear behavior going back at a minimum of a year. United States Man reverts before talk page discussions, and it seems to be right as they come back from a break from editing. As stated, I have a history with United States Man, but it honestly is annoying and frustrating. Going back a year, articles and content has been created and when United States Man returns to editing, without any discussion or consensus occurring, they proceed to try to single handedly revert/remove it all, and then, like today, proceeds to edit war over it without going to discussions. This is not constructive behavior and should not be the behavior of editors on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It also appears that they (somehow) have rollback permissions, despite being blocked for edit warring and being consistently reverted for these behaviors. E_F⁵ 00:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hanson Wu continuation

The previous ANI report was closed with no action, but the user continues the same behavior. Insistence on changing "politician" to "statesman" coupled with repeatedly trying to hammer in the changes, without bringing disputed edits to the talk page discussion, even after directly being told in a previous edit summary to do so (along with notices in talk page that have not been answered). User has not been in any talk pages or the previous ANI. 172.56.232.212 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, IP, you would do well to provide diffs to edits where the editor is doing this. And, while you're at it, consider creating an account for steady communication's sake. BarntToust 01:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's Special:diff/1259102555 and Special:diff/1259640309. I guess Hanson Wu is purposefully pretending the threads doesn't exist given they edited the same page after the IP's call to communicate with no response. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Loveworldpeace2003

Can someone please help check the contributions of User:Loveworldpeace2003? Many of his edits are adding unsourced information about an actor William Jaye or Will Johnson. Sometimes he reverts it himself, and sometimes others revert it. Some haven't been reverted. There are almost 100 edits going back months. I've speedy-deleted his newly created article William Jaye.

Links:

• Loveworldpeace2003 (talk · contribs)
• William Jaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quarl ^(talk) 02:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)