Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1175

Concern About a New Contributor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear Wikipedians,

I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.

Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.

By the way [1] [2] [3] [4] is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Wikipedia’s guidelines.

She seems to lack understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).

Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:

• [5]

• [6]

• [7]

• [8]

and many more

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please check! [9] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Wikipedia and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Wikipedia policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that she is not new to Wikipedia and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Wikipedia. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @BusterD,

  It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.

  Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Remsense,

  I am not engaged in paid activities on Wikipedia, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Wikipedia vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Simonm223,

  I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Wikipedia vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Wikipedia with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You can't both criticize someone for lack[ing] understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Wikipedia page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.

  In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Wikipedia’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Wikipedia article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking.[10] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link.[11] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. E_F⁵ 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RFPP EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person. I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.

Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque.^{[12][13][14][15]} That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to warn a user otherwise block request

Socking editor. Nothing to see here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This @Gheus Is making disruptive edits on different pages such as he made at Daily Dunya.He is placing deletion tags and is notability tags. The article is already has confirmed notability.This user did not stoped at this point he remove my warning from his talk page also and is removing content from other pages.I think please do some action Blirth (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC) A quick cursory check seems to indicate that he is not being disruptive, but if anything editing contentiously but that is not prohibited. Looking at his AfD nominations, most of them are correct and consensus agrees with deleting or redirecting, instead of keeping most of the time -- although he does not get it correct every time. Rather it looks like you disagree, and when you brought it to his talk page once [16] he disregarded and deleted it asserting that you were the vandal [17]. It appears that he has a list of websites [18] that he considers promotional and likely is going about cleaning those up. Looking at Daily Dunya specifically, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with placing a AfD or Notability tags for this. Without looking into it much I would also question if this article meets GNG. Going beyond that article a quick look at his other edits also seem to be perhaps contentious but nothing that looks like vandalism, edit warring, or POV pushing. As such, this doesn't look like something for urgent admin intervention unless you have something more specific to reference. TiggerJay (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) This can be closed as the reporting user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. TiggerJay (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint by IPv6

Continued disruption by editor who refuses to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A Wikipedia editor lied about me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B I had complained about a editor, in the Alba Party article talk section, who claimed totally wrongly that I had compared someone to Holocaust deniers, I complained about that personal attack, and of course there was a pile on by the other editors on me, making horrible statements about me, I wont say which, but it is there to see Now on the talk page, I stated, a thank you to someone who came on defended me, and then The Bushranger a wikipedia editor came on to claim I was the one who had defended me. I did not. I find this allegation insulting, and am sure there will now be wikipedia editors on, who have another pile on. Shame on the lies about me, I did not do that, and shame on the horrible things they say about people who try to edit. I dont mind if you ban me from editing, the behaviour from the wikipedia editors is just atrocious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3D01:1470:CD88:4E1A:40F0 (talk • contribs) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PlumberLeyland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone else please deal with PlumberLeyland, I feel a bit involved myself, not least because of the personal attacks ([19], User talk:PlumberLeyland/sandbox, [20]). If they say that sort of stuff to me, they'll one day say it to someone who actually minds. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a regular admin action. --Yamla (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And TPA pulled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent unsourced changes by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2001:999:500:8D52:753A:9BD7:9D61:823B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc.

Note that another IP in the same /64 range (2001:999:500:8D52:8065:5651:5389:18E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) was blocked for the same reasons less than a week ago. BilletsMauves^€500 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've come across a user who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinitely block on Wikipedia. This is the user I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop4883368638

I'm not sure if what I suspect is true, however I've found other accounts with the same editing habits as the user above. These are the users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop443535454, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop40493, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop2017

That's all the information I have to hopefully support my suspicions. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll ping User:Drmies since they blocked the other accounts. They probably have a better sense of whether or not this is the same editor. Right now, it seems like a username similarity at least. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI 2001:8003:B16F:FE00:BCD0:5E51:7D5E:445D (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• The user in question has been blocked by Drmies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, could an admin undo these blocks that I made? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per this message on an IP talk page (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and this message on my talk page. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::

• 178.220.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 79.101.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 178.221.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock) Graham87 (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Done BusterD (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.

I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.

As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.

Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)

The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.

In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.

At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, like, if only one of |blp= and |living= gets updated, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren^C 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.

Key Points:

1. Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
   • The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
   • The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
   • The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
2. Ongoing Disruption:
   • Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
   • This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
3. Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
   • Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
   • Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
4. Impact on the Community:
   • The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
   • These actions disregard Wikipedia's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

1. Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
2. Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
3. Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.

This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Wikipedia's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.

If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."

I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated – Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.

At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.

There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here [26] for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.

You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

External videos
Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy

Rc2barrington's user page says This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.

Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.

Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.

Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.

Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.

So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from IP

For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago ([38], [39]), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with [40][41]. I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF"[42][43], including GE Capital Aviation [44](the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News [45] (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:24.187.28.171

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated WP:DOB at Huntley (singer), though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdrianJustine (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@EdrianJustine: could you please provide specific diffs? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ryancasey93

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ryancasey93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Talk:Anti-Barney humor, a user by the name of Ryancasey93 requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them ([46]) that was added by TheLennyGriffinFan1994 ([47]). The talk page discussion was removed by AntiDionysius as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to make an edit request to cite their channel, which was declined by LizardJr8, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.

I then brought up concerns with WP:GNG and WP:COI with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, creating a chain of replies and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to go off on a tangent where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".

Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Wikipedia, having violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:PROMOTION, and a block may be needed. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @Tamzin gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user replacing references with links to a lottery website

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nvygroup (talk · contribs) - noticed this on my watchlist, but this user with a promotional-sounding username has two edits, both of which replace otherwise legitimate references with links to what appears to be an Indonesian-language lottery site. No edit summaries either. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE all considered. Departure– (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility, aspersions, WP:NOTHERE from Cokeandbread

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Cokeandbread is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: Jimmy Rex and Hammy TV. Cokeandbread has refused (diff) to answer good-faith questions (diff, diff) about whether they are operating as a paid editor (responding to one of them with Don't threaten me) and posted a copyvio to Commons (diff). Despite warnings (diff), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (diff, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (diff, diff, diff), while demanding respect in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine. (diff). Despite another warning (diff), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (diff), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into WP:NOTHERE territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should WP:ASSUMEGODFAITH. EEng 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question for WP:COIN or something. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Suspicious indeed. There's an open case at SPI, although CheckUser did not confirm connections on the first batch of reported accounts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Actually see it's already been partly dealt with at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaekuma. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  ...after posting this as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Should have locked their TPA. Borgenland (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  On another note, I would like to flag Hammy TV with some COI-related tag in light of this but I couldn't remember the exact template. Borgenland (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Dngmin

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

The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of Byeon Woo-seok. Issues began when this editor 1500 bytes of sourced material. He did it again and again and again for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.

Since october the user received warning for blocked from editing. Please help to block the user. Puchicatos (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming the mention of diffs and @PhilKnight: was a cut and paste failure? [48] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. Puchicatos (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

New user creating a lot of new pages

• 4Gramtops (talk · contribs)

I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They created 50 new pages in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to my talk page messages trying to get an explanation (which I know they've seen since they used my heading as a new subpage title)

On a related note, they have also created this epilepsy nightmare. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system for permissions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Given Special:PrefixIndex/User:4Gramtops/, I find it likeliest they're trying to learn Lua by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically U5. Folly Mox (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Might not even be U5 if the purpose of trying to learn Lua is to develop the expertise to work on Lua modules for Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I already suggested they use Test 2 Wikipedia for that purpose. It'd lead to a lot less clutter. I do find that either way they should probably say what they're trying to do. No one can help them if they don't communicate. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

197-Countryballs-World

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So far, 197-Countryballs-World (talk · contribs) has made categories, started drafts, and attempted edits to articles, all of which make it clear they presently view Wikipedia a bit like their personal playground where they can build some sort of confused, redundant atlas. They have not responded whatsoever to talk messages, their categories at CfD, or their unsourced additions to live articles being reverted. If they can hear us, it seems they need to be gotten a hold of if they want to be a positive contributor—but it seems likely that they can't hear us. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

(NAC) Based on their username, I can reasonably confer that their edits likely pertain to the Countryball Fandom. Just a note, as I know we've historically had issues with Fandom editors crossing into Wikipedia. Feel free to remove if this message is innapropriate for ANI. :) E_F⁵ 20:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Mostly, they seem young. Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed them for disruption and incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Haha balls. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rude and unfestive language in my talk page

My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...interesting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: [49], [50], [51], [52]. They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a WP:NOTHERE block might be justified soon. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. The idea of WP:3RR is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that Vector legacy (2010)'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is safe to say that both these editors are skating on thin ice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

To that point, Vector legacy (2010)'s userpage consists of a tally of "EDIT WARS WON". I doubt this is serious, but the optics of it, combined with the above 3RR vio bragging about the other party being on the line, is not good. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated that userpage at MFD as it's purely disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Glenn103

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: [53][54][55] '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?

I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it  Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iacowriter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Iacowriter has been warned in the past year to properly update numbers since he is not listening and can't do basic rounding of numbers and update the accessdate parameter. He has been warned enough times about this as seen by his Talk page by me and other editors but still refuses to listen.

I've requested admin action but I was told to go here. Timur9008 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This has been going on for months now. At first I thought he was following the bad example of other editors who fail to update the box office gross consistently in all places it needs to be updated (article body, lead, infobox) but it goes beyond this. I tried asking nicely and repeatedly tried to explain the basics of how to round numbers (which is odd because he seems to be able to get it right in the Infobox most of the time, but frequently fails in the lead section and fails to update the article body). The problem is compounded by his failure to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide a meaningful edit summary.

User:Betty Logan warned him politely (diff) October 27, 2024, but Iacowriter seems unwilling or unable* to correct his persistent mistakes and unfortunately it seems to be necessary to escalate this issue in some way. (* (diff) stated that he has autism) -- 109.79.69.146 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Leave me alone! I’m trying! Iacowriter (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Trying is one thing, but you seem to keep ignoring it he advice you're getting from others. It looks like there have been multiple requests for you to stop rounding numbers incorrectly. Why have you refused to stop? Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Making the same edit while this ANI is ongoing is not "trying" in good faith and as such, I have blocked from mainspace. Longer note TK on their Talk Star Mississippi 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

for anyone considering a future unblock request, User_talk:Iacowriter#ANI_discussion has further discussion with the editor. Star Mississippi 18:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Numerical rounding is a straightforward skill that should have been mastered at high-school. There are even online rounding apps available if it is something you struggle with. From what I recall of my interaction with this editor the issue of incorrect rounding is compounded by reverts (of editors who subsequently correct the rounding errors) and communication problems. For what it's worth I don't think this is deliberate vandalism or disruptive behavior (Iacowriter is apparently autistic), but the bottom line is that he is causing a lot of unnecessary clean-up work. Perhaps there are other aspects of Wikipedia he could work on that won't lead to the same problems? Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undoing my work

Troll. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:GoodDay is undoing my work even tho the information is correct. Auxiliary213 (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Hi- please discuss this on the article talk page, Talk:Yoon Suk Yeol; admins do not settle content disputes. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) @Auxiliary213: You have failed to notify GoodDay (talk · contribs) of this report, even though the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires you to do so. In fact, you have not even attempted to discuss the matter with them at all. Discussing reverts such as theirs is a requirement on this project; if nothing else, it allows you to understand why they thought that your information might not be appropriate for the page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) You've only made one edit to Wikipedia, since your arrival two days ago. Are you going to report every editor who reverts you, going forward? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) First of all you should learn manners. I am only reporting it, because you didn't give me clarification of the revert. Auxiliary213 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Auxiliary213 - you are the one who needs some manners. GoodDay was right to revert your edit, and an explanation was provided in the edit summary. GiantSnowman 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Stay out of this, you are irrelavent. Auxiliary213 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) That's enough, Auxiliary213. You are not entitled to treat other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC) No - you brought it here for admin attention, and I am an admin giving it attention. If you continue to be rude and disruptive because you don't like the answer then you will likely end up blocked. GiantSnowman 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Alright. I do not care. Block me if you insist but i definetly ate you up 😝🤪🤪🤪 Auxiliary213 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Acroterion & GiantSnowman, I think we have a WP:NOTHERE situation. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, inclined to agree... GiantSnowman 15:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Can yall block me? Idk how to delete this acc Auxiliary213 (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Have blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated unconstructive edits by IP 58.235.154.8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 58.235.154.8 has made several edits without sourcing, for which they have been warned previously. (my apologies, I cannot send a link to the dif of the first warning as it was the first edit to their talk page) After continuing, they were reported to ANI, and banned for two months.[56]

Just over five hours after their ban expired, they resumed their vandalism,[57] for which I sent them two warnings on their talk page.[58] The first warning was for marking a flight of Starship as having occured in the List of Starship launches article,[59] followed by their previous addition of almost completely blank sections to Starship flight test 7.[60] This was over the course of 7 edits.

The edits that got them banned, as described by the user who filed the ANI report, was "Changing a month to the following month, for future planned events without reference". After taking a nearly month long break, they have resumed this.[61][62]

It is clear that they are not here to improve Wikipedia. Redacted II (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIR, EW and Battleground

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk · contribs) has displayed abominable WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, incivility and other intolerable behavior as part of targeted edit warring on Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. Despite not having consensus to bloat the page with WP:NOTNEWS entries they proceeded to WP:IDNHT and had to be reverted several times at the same time engaging in WP:SHOUTING and wholesale removal and vandalism of citations ([63]) and casting aspersions on experienced well-meaning editors who tried to revert them ([64]).

They then made International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 to circumvent consensus and is currently nominated for deletion per WP:NOTABILITY and engaged in redirect warring and yet more uncivil behavior in making another aspersion and false claims of hounding by reverting users ([65] and [66]). Finally, they continue to engage in WP:IDNHT behavior when warned on their Talk Page. See User talk:SimpleSubCubicGraph#December 2024. Borgenland (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also look at the edit summaries on International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 showing a very strong WP:OWN attitude [67] and thinks a "moderator" has more review privledges than a normal editor [68]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ip 77.98.111.156

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 77.98.111.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Shabana Mahmood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [69]
• Dario Amodei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [70]

  Talk:Dario_Amodei#Controversial_comment

• Sam Altman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [71] [72]

  Talk:Sam_Altman#Section_about_Mr_Altman's_views_on_AI_replacing_people's_jobs

• Mira Murati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [73][74][75][76][77]

  Talk:Mira_Murati#Controversial_comment

Looks like a WP:NOTHERE situation. Edit warring at all four BLP articles. Disrupting article talk pages and User_talk:Alenoach#Message_26_December_2024. --Hipal (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

My edits were all perfectly reasonable. When other users suggested I should open a discussion on the talk pages I have done so.

The objections have become increasingly insane (I think that's a fair word to use in this instance), hence my frustration, for which I apologise.

For example claiming that adding an edit that had over 100 media articles written about it was "original research". How can that possibly be true?

Also being accused of POV, when in reality the people with a POV are clearly the people removing my edits without any justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.111.156 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi 77.98! The issue here is that neither you nor I get to decide if any of these statements are controversial. We have to let reliable, independent, secondary sources decide that, and then we summarize and cite it. In fact, our policy on content about living persons is very strict, meaning that we typically require the most reputable of sources (and often multiple sources) when we're reporting on negative or controversial content.

An example is this edit at Mira Murati. CNBC (which is a good source, by the way) reported that Murati made those statements about AI and job loss—but critically, CNBC didn't say anything about a controversy or otherwise take a stance on the comments. That is what made your edits original research.

If these statements truly are causing a controversy, then it shouldn't be difficult to find some reliable sources saying that. Woodroar (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the explanation.

I did suggest this link as an alternative https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2024/06/23/generative-ai-as-a-killer-of-creative-jobs-hold-that-thought/ which does mention that it caused a controversy. I looked on the list of reliable sources and it appeared that forbes.com was green and therefore reliable. But Hipal has subsequently said that version of forbes.com isn't reliable.

If I find a source that is green on the list of reliable sources and it mentions that it's a controversy, would that be ok?

I am not here to cause trouble btw. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately that article is by a Forbes contributor, which means they're not a Forbes journalist and they can self-publish pretty much anything they want. Forbes is somewhat like a content farm in that way. The entry for Forbes contributors is at WP:FORBESCON.

If you find a source (or better, multiple sources) listed in green, that should probably be fine. Make sure to read the entire summary, though. Reliability is nuanced, and some sources may not be reliable for everything. See the entry for People, for example, which is green but the summary says it shouldn't be used for contentious claims.

One last suggestion: because you've made multiple changes to these articles and been reverted, consider bringing any sources you find to the Talk page to discuss if or how to include them. That's an excellent way to demonstrate good faith, especially since you're off to a rough start. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and rough starts aren't uncommon, so I'm hopeful that everyone else will be just as willing to work with you. Woodroar (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the explanation. In hindsight I should've read the links to the rules that people had posted. In future I will open discussion in Talk pages prior to making any changes. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to help! If you have any questions in the future, feel free to reach out. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks very much. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether we should modify or not the article on Mura Mirati to include the quote can reasonably be argued for or against.

The issue here is mainly about edit warring and WP:Civility. Despite having received a warning about edit warring and the three-revert rule, 77.98.111.156 has added back the section 5 times (original edit, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), in response to reverts by 4 different users. For the revert I made in this article and two others BLP articles where similar "Controversy" sections were added (1, 2), I got into two aggressive discussions (1, 2), and was accused of having a "huge conflict of interests" for being a "huge fan of AI".

I saw though that this discussion recently gave signs of improvement so I will not insist if 77.98.111.156 consistently behaves respectfully from there. Alenoach (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I accept I was wrong. I've apologised to you on your Talk page. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the productive discussion you've had here.

WP:CIVIL begins with, "Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors. Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same." Can you please address your talk page behavior in light of WP:CIVIL? (eg [78][79][80] [81]) --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I will act in a civil way in future. Apologies for being rude to you earlier. As I've said above, in hindsight I should've read the links to the rules that people were posting. I thought I was applying common sense but I accept that I was wrong to do that. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you'll apologize to the other editors as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I will do. Cheers. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NLT block?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Plansau1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – for this threat on Joseph Weterings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socking vandal/troll back again

Dealt with. Sandstein 10:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Fistagon sock and vandal who stalks the edits of me and a few others is back again as TweenQween (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Could I please ask that the usual action be taken against them, along with revdel on their edit summaries? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)  Done Sandstein 09:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Many thanks Sandstein - I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

User:Remsense

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, Remsense, Told me to remove diacritics in the article Palestine, and is threatening to do the same here. They claimed that I personally attacked them and accused me of 'yelling at them' in an edit summary at the article India. They also denied saying that. If you do not believe me, feel free to look at that edit summary, as they won't leave me alone anytime soon. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 08:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Proudly hanging a banner calling someone a harasser and liar at the top of your user page is a personal attack, but saying one rewrote some text such that it yells at the reader is not. If anyone has questions, let me know, otherwise I'm tuning out. Remsense ‥ 论 08:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This could have been avoided if you didn't threaten to report me to ANI. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It also could've been avoided if you expressed any self awareness whatsoever. Remsense ‥ 论 08:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Freedoxm, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Otherwise, you are headed to an interaction ban or a block. --Yamla (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff for this edit summary?CycoMa2 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

stick has already been dropped. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's currently a row going on between two UK political parties – the Conservatives and Reform UK – about the counter on Reform's website that the Conservative leader has claimed is automated to just tick up all the time regardless of actual numbers.

Party membership in the UK is not audited, so there's no real way of knowing what the truth is as yet.

On Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom, IP and newly registered users are visiting the site and then coming here to tick the figure up. This is remarkably unproductive, especially for an unsourced (and probably unsourceable) number. Not against our rules, per se, but... just a bit ridiculous.

There seems to be no point in reverting to the last sourced version here (BBC, but vague) since it's just going to get ticked up from the party website again.

Some options on what – if anything – we should be doing would be welcome (protection? but is that a sledgehammer to crack a nut?). 81.2.123.64 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you started a discussion about this on the article talk page? That seems like the appropriate location to settle a content dispute, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is a content dispute – it sort-of straddles multiple issues, of which content is only a small part. Also, since it's new users and IPs, starting a conversation on the talk page will be me talking to myself unless I start reverting – which will have me over the 3RR and blocked (we give no rope at all to IPs, after all) within 10 minutes. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It's also happening at Reform UK - indeed, there's a SPA editor there (User:C R Munday) that does little else but increase the membership ticker. Given that the membership numbers are only primary sourced and disputed, I wonder if it would be better to either remove them or mark them as disputed for now. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a case for WP:RFPP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I use third-party sources (media outlets) to verify as per the rules set out in WP:PRIMARY. These numbers are now NOT disputed and confirmed as accurate after inspection by several reputable media outlets. C R Munday (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be a debate had on the article's talk page. C R Munday (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I write this that article says that all of the parties it lists published membership figures today, two days after Christmas. Unlikely, to say the least. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've EC protected both articles, Reform UK was only semi'ed and Political party affiliation was not protected at all. If folks think length needs adjusting, feel free as the duration was a guess. Star Mississippi 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As I feared might happen, a revert war now appears to have broken out on Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive category additions by Simbine0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Simbine0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps disruptively adding the category 'Category:Occitan-language films' to articles where the Occitan language isn't discussed in the article (see WP:CATVER), continued after final warning. Simbine0 is indef blocked on the French Wikipedia. @Ciseleur: removed the category across several articles due to "inter-wiki disruption", and Simbine0 re-added them - I reverted the additions due to CATVER issues, then Simbine0 re-added them again, in one of the reverts leaving the edit summary of "Sei ein Mann und forsche selbst wie ein Erwachsener", meaning "Be a man and do your own research like an adult". Examples of recent category additons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I made a request on meta about this issue. --Ciseleur (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Automated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be included, according to fr:RfCU. --Ciseleur (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts. If someone can, a bulk revert of Simbine0's edits would be a time saver. Wiki Automated had only one and it's reverted. Star Mississippi 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing from User:Azar Altman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Azar Altman is disruptive editing and failing to interact positively on talk page discussions. He appears to be POV pushing, unlike you, I know everything about my country and especially the city.[82]

• Changing Data: [83] [84]. He was previously warned about changing numbers [85]
• Incorrect formatting or breaking things such as: [86] [87]
• Removal without reason: [88] [89] [90]
• Talk page interaction is uncivil: [91] [92].
• Edits have been reverted by at least 4 different editors, three of which have placed a total of 6 warnings on the talk page.

I do AGF they are attempting to be a positive contributor, but they also appear to simply want to POV push and disregard other editors and/or WP:P&G because WP:IKNOWITSTRUE. Additionally, there is a degree of WP:CIR that is missing when it comes to appropriate sourcing and using markup. Attempts at civil discourse has been ignored. [93] [94] For those reasons, I recommend a very short term block to get their attention further to contribute positively and also to engage in consensus. TiggerJay (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AUSrogue's behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are pushing an anti-semitic point of view and calling editors who disagree with them Jewish as an insult. The original issue is this [95] on List of terrorist incidents in Australia where they say some terrorist attack was labeled as Christian terrorism by Jewish wikipedia editors. I reverted it, left a level 2 personal attacks warning on their talk page, and they agreed to stop.

They then do [96] which just isn't neutral. This was a month ago, and today, they put it back, leaving this [97] on my talk page, with an image, Toxic Wikipedia Users.png uploaded just for me. This is a reference to the Jewish Internet Defense Force which I take issue with.

I believe AUSrogue isn't here to build an encyclopedia. win8x (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not acceptable. Blocked indefinitely, they can explain themselves in an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please revoke TPA from MarkDiBelloBiographer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Misuse of talk page after being blocked. Still promotion the same person. -Lemonaka 03:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? She said that she wants to create a Wikipedia page for her friend as a Christmas gift. She got blocked, and now she's complaining that she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If you don't want to explain how Wikipedia works, why not just stop looking at the page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I offered to write about him and did for 3 long days as a gift and you guys disbelieved everything, none of which I put was false! It's all on the web, in papers, or other media, or pictures and on his websites

Anyways Mark and I were both fans of and he thinks it's a valuable resource for people I'm just sorry you're so negative and inaccurate about me and him

I believe this is not the good try after getting block. -Lemonaka 03:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This person clearly appears to be a good faith editor, they just don’t understand notability requirements. Now they’re blocked and being reported? Nobody could take the time to be kind and explain how this place works? Wow. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This does seem to be, if not a wrong block, one for the wrong reasons - it's certainly not an "Advertising only" account. And absolutely no need for TPA to be revoked, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have warned @Caabdirisaq1 multiple times in his talk page with no avail. He consistently vandalises articles by adding images unrelated to them such as Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali , Matan ibn Uthman Al Somali and Garad Hirabu Goita Tedros Al Somali . I have been trying to revert the changes made and explained that they were of orientalist paintings of Arab bedouins. Replayerr (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Replayerr, you may disagree with these, as you say, orientalist depictions, but that doesn't make Caabdirisaq1's edits "vandalism". You also haven't actually discussed the matter with them--you merely placed two standard warnings and threatened to have the editor blocked. You reverted them a few times on Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali but you never explained why. I am not going to take administrative action on a content matter where the complainant (you) have done so little to make clear why those edits were problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Adolf Schreyer produced the paintings in the late 19th century mainly depicting Arabs and they have nothing to do with the Adal Sultanate and those Somali soldiers which fought for it. They have been doing image vandalism on these articles and they're all related to each other.

  This image has nothing to do with Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Schreyer_Reitende_Araber_mit_Gefolge.jpg

  I have spoken to him on the article but he had constantly reverted the talk page and prevented a discussion from taking place as evident here. [98][99] Replayerr (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

These edits adding these images may not rise to the level of vandalism but they seem pretty disruptive to me. Adolf Schreyer was a 19th century painter well known for portraying horses and horsemen, and he traveled to to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and what is now Algeria. He also painted horses and horsemen in a European context. I know nothing about his work other than what the Wikipedia article says or the file pages for the various public domain images on Commons say. If the image file says something like "two Arab horsemen" and the painting was created 150 years ago, then adding that image to the biography of someone who lived 500 years ago with zero evidence connecting that specific painting to that specific individual 350 years earlier is disruptive and unacceptable. So, maybe I am missing something and maybe there is a Catalogue raisonné for this artist that identifies these paintings as representing figures of the Adal Sultanate. But lacking that sort of solid evidence (which should be reflected in the Commons file pages), then adding these images is a violation of the No original research policy, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute, Replayerr opened a discussion on an article's talk page three times; the first two times Caabdirisaq1 simply deleted Replayerr's talk page post rather than replying to it. That alone seems pretty inappropriate behavior. CodeTalker (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't spoken to me once and I've tried to hold discussions explaining it to him but he ignores them and reverts the changes done. I opened this incident so something could be done regarding this. Replayerr (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've left another comment asking them to come to this discussion and participate in this conversation about images added to articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't listened and is still editing those articles with the unrelated images. He has reverted all my changes.[100][101] Replayerr (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor does not seem to want to discuss things. Maybe a partial block from mainspace would help? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KairosJames

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

This user's additions of unsourced content to biographical articles (not any living persons that I've seen, or I'd have gone to BLP) have been reverted many times, with several warnings. They've made no response on any talk page. Assuming they actually are getting these facts from some kind of source, I would think they could be a constructive editor, but they at the very least need to become aware of our citing standards in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually in one of their recent edits (here) they added content that was patently false, so for all I know they've made up all the other unsourced info. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Insults

I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, following this, I have made this sockpuppet investigation request. Psychloppos (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Of note, Hazar Sam has now accused Psychloppos of engaging in defamatory edits, which smacks of a WP:LEGAL violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

And their response to being warned about that was to flounce. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So apparently he was indeed the person insulting me under IP (which he calls having "a little anonymous fun"). Psychloppos (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.

I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Navin Ramgoolam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past few months, Navin Ramgoolam has been ravaged by a recurring edit war between Nikhilrealm (talk · contribs) and BerwickKent (talk · contribs). I understand that both had been warned on their TPs multiple times but have still continued. I'd leave it to others who needs to be sanctioned. Anyways, I have tried multiple times to have the page locked but apparently evaluations on RFP do not believe it is that serious. Borgenland (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have dropped the stick since they received the stern warning from @LaffyTaffer. RFP really isn't necessary since it seems to be an edit war between two specific users who can be individually dealt with without unduly limiting editing by others not involved. It's not that the edit war isn't serious, but rather not serious enough to perform a full protection from all edits just because of a few bad users. TiggerJay (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope they do. This has been flaring up repeatedly since October and clogging up the edit history. Borgenland (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I only issued those warnings this morning, and this edit war has been happening slowly. I'm not sure whether they're actually dropping the stick, but here's hoping they have. There will certainly be a report here or WP:ANEW if the reverts kick back up. Taffer 😊 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to investigate

Dear Wikipedians,

I suspect this user User:2A00:23C5:C05E:EC00:F4C0:EA5C:FA3A:BE07 may be a sockpuppet of User:Kriji Sehamati due to similarities in editing patterns and focus areas.[102], [103]

Thank you! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 05:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You can bring that over to WP:SPI but be prepared to have specific evidence to support your allegation in the form of diffs, etc. TiggerJay (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI is thataway, yes. Also you tagged the IP as a suspected sock, when {{Sockpuppet}} specifically says The template should not be used in this manner (and I'm pretty sure we don't tag IP socking "account pages" at all anymore). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As a reminder, before using a template there is a handy Usage section, in this case {{Sockpuppet}} says In general, this template should only be applied by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process.. But in specific regard to this allegation, do make sure you open an API with specific information. While you can report IP addresses, and this sockmaster has been found to block evade using IP addresses[104], they are in a completely different network in a different country, so initially it would seem unlikely, without very specific diffs to show the abuse. TiggerJay (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

In case it is not clear from all of these other messages, User:s-Aura, do not tag an account as being a suspected sockpuppet unless it is confirmed by a checkuser, an admin who works at SPI or an SPI clerk. Your suspicions are not enough to label an account as a sockpuppet. If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, file a report at SPI, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that thankyou!

I’ll remember to follow the right steps next time. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Kremoni-ze

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kremoni-ze (talk · contribs · logs)

Editor appears to be using grammar-checking software to reword one or two sentences in major articles, but they either aren't fluent enough in English or aren't reading carefully enough to realise when this renders a sentence factually inaccurate. Some of these edits are also being applied to direct, historical quotations.

Both of these issues were raised on their talk page but they've continued making the same mistakes since (eg. [105], [106]). Possible WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Belbury (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Behold!

−

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found to infiltrate the water cycle from farms. 73% of all antibiotics used globally are used in animal raising. As a result, wastewater treatment facilities can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found to infiltrate the water cycle from farms. Seventy three percent (73%) of all antibiotics used globally are used in animal raising. As a result, wastewater treatment facilities can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.

Remsense ‥ 论 12:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HollywoodShui

In the last few years, User:HollywoodShui has attempted several mass additions of (generally non-contemporary) portrait sketches by one particular artist to biographies, all marked as minor edits. I was the most recent one to tell them to stop, and that they need to consider each article instead of spamming indiscriminately. They did not respond, and an hour later they decided to keep going for a bit. I do not see why they won't do this again in a few months or a year. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like over the years they have uploaded a bunch over at commons, and some of that has been deleted. I think there might be a COI concern here based on editing trends. TiggerJay (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense, you are not a new editor. You should know that when you made a complaint at ANI you have to present diffs illustrating the bad behavior you claim is going on. Otherwise, your complaint is likely to just be ignored. You need to provide evidence and not just come here and post a complaint. The editors who review cases at ANI want to be able to verify that what you say is actually happening. Nothing is going to happen based on your narrative complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Every single one of them, Liz. I didn't attach diffs because the "contributions" link clearly suffices. Remsense ‥ 论 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking editors viewing this complaint to look through an editor's entire contributions will result in very little response to your complaint. If you want editors to respond, you need to spell it out clearly and you haven't here. You need to point out the problems, specifically. I don't expect much to come out of this. Editors are busy people and shouldn't have to do your work for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you don't find the report clear, I don't mind if you ignore it. Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like coming to ANI is your immediate response to disputes, Remsense. You might try alternative approaches to dispute resolution before bringing editors to a noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a user who was spamming Wikipedia. I made it clear to them that this is what they are doing and they should stop, and they didn't, nor did they respond to messages. If you think they should be allowed to continue as they were, then that's your right, but I have no idea what other avenues are available if I think someone needs to stop and they don't respond to messages. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every one of HollywoodShui's 197 edits has been to add a 100 year-old drawing by Manuel Rosenberg:

• [107]
• [108]
• [109]

I left this talk page message last year for HollywoodShui advising them to be mindful of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.

Today, HollywoodShui stated here (via IP) that Manuel Rosenberg is his great uncle, and HollywoodShui wanted to share the images because of their "significant historical value".

HollywoodShui appears a good faith editor who genuinely wants improve the project. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a photo gallery, and in my opinion, few of the sketches improve the articles they were added to.

A solution for HollywoodShui would be to add a Manuel Rosenberg gallery on the Commons, and then add that category to images like this.

Then, add a Commons link to each Wikipedia biography. (EPLS). Magnolia677 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

After engaging with them on their talk page they seem to have good intentions and are specific in how they’re adding images. This does not appear to be abusive but perhaps a bit misguided. A thoughtful discussion on the appropriate uses of those photos (over 100 of which are in commons) would be a good place to start. TiggerJay (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they were being very discriminate, though. What justifications could be articulated for adding these to, e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Albert I of Belgium, Thomas Edison if any attention was paid to the articles as they were? What is the intended effect for the reader in having one of these sketches pop up across a significant number of the most important late 19th-century biographies? As far as I can tell, I was the first one to introduce thoughts to the process here, and I was ignored. Given their response to scrutiny so far, I doubt if they use this account again, it will be for anything other than the same. If that turns out not to be the case, then of course all the better. Remsense ‥ 论 16:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Help Needed for Move Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request that Admins address this Move discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beach00 and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Beach00 (talk · contribs) has made a series of personal attacks in a contentious topic area, see for example this and this. They received a final warning for personal attacks and decided to respond with Russian Bot. Mellk (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

48 hours is lenient, especially recently after a 1 week block. But I guess the WP:ROPE can lead to an indef for their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for user page protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. The user Olve Utne has passed away, the global account is locked, see m:Special:CentralAuth/Olve Utne. Can an administrator protect User:Olve Utne and User talk:Olve Utne from editing? Thanks in advance! Best regards, no-wiki sysop 1000mm (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The user page has been fully protected. Thanks for letting us know. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My condolences. Isabelle Belato has protected his userpage. On enwiki, we usually don't protect the talk page as users might wish to leave condolences or see messages regarding articles the editor has contributed to. Spicy (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of the established practice in regards of user talk pages here at enwiki. That’s of course OK. 1000mm (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I'm Facebook friends with his wife. I didn't know he was a Wikipedian.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits on Syria-related articles (mostly regarding flag changes)

IP User 174.93.39.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on changing the flag of Syria to the revolution flag which has not been considered official yet according to Talk:Syria. Here are some examples: Japan-Syria relations, Syria-Ukraine relations (he mentioned option B and I don't know what he meant), and Iraq-Syria relations. He has done this repeatedly as proven by one of his older edit of the Ukraine article which was reverted. Also he was previously blocked for a week on the 15th for disruptive editing, but I checked his post-block contributions and he also did a few more disruptive edits as seen here (those with tag:reverted). Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

96.83.255.53

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

... was previously blocked twice for personal attacks and incivility. A longer block is probably warranted. C F A 05:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked 3 months. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP editor on Christian fundamentalism

2600:1700:500:D0D0:1870:6A86:412B:C026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring warnings and repeatedly making edits that essentially promote Christian fundamentalism and intelligent design, e.g. denying that it is "pseudoscientific". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor has just been editing for about an hour. How about we give them some time to respond to their talk page messages before laying down sanctions? It would also have been preferable if you had tried talking with this editor and not just plopped down multiple template messages. Try communicating, like to another person, before starting a case at ANI. Templates are wordy and impersonal. As for ignoring user talk page messages, they stopped editing after only 20 minutes and many of these messages were posted after they had stopped editing. For all we know, they may not even be aware that they have a user talk page. I'd try not to be so trigger-happy. Let's see if they return to edit. Many IPs don't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that I could have been more personal. The reason I reported this editor was that I already made three reverts to the article before they edited it again and nobody else was paying attention to the article at the time I reported. But then they stopped editing immediately after I reported them. Was there a better way to deal with this other than an ANI report? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing my report, I see that a different noticeboard such as FRINGEN might have been a better place, since they handle a lot of similar issues that don't rise to chronic behavioral problems and don't necessarily require admin assistance. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive reverts and insults by Andmf12

Andmf12 (talk · contribs)

First, I'm French and my english isn't perfect. Then, it's my first report here, so sorry if I'm not posting on the right place.

Since days, Andmf12 (talk · contribs) is continuously reverting on article CS Dinamo București (men's handball) but also insulting me: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 insult: "are you dumb?", revert 4 insult: "yes, you are an idiot and stop deleting because we are not interested in your stupid rules, like you", revert 5 insult: "You're crying like a little girl and I see you don't want to calm down".

The object of the reverts is about non-sourced hypothetical (or not yet confirmed) transfers (see ? on each item) but as I explained many times in my removal, "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a crystal ball". If needed Bellahcene and Pelayo's transfer has been mentioned ("devrait") but not confirmed yet. Same thing for Rosta.

For a little more context, previous similar behaviour by differents IPs happened in this article and lead to a request for page protection on 4 December and a second time on 22 December. Actually, the problem wasn't only for the handball club article but the same problem occurred to multiple handball clubs and led to many pages protection. At that time, CS Dinamo București (men's handball) was the worst with already many insults in english ("Where is democracy? We do not distort information, we come to support handball fans who do not have a platform like transfermarkt in football" and "Are you stupid?") or in romanian "iar ai aparut ma prostule?" (meaning "You showed up again, you idiot?"), "mars ma" (x2), "Nu mai sterge bai prostule" meaning according to google "Stop wiping your ass, you idiot").

Coincidence or not, looking at Andmf12 contributions led to the conclusion he.she is Romanian and by the way one can see that he also have had inappropriate behavior in the past months (diff with probable insult in capitals "NU MAI EDITA PAGINA DACA NU AI TREABA CU CLUBUL INAPTULE", diff with insult "don't delete if you have nothing to do with the team", diff with insult "fck u iovan jovaov")

I'm not fully aware of the rules here, but I think that Andmf12 (talk · contribs) should sanctioned somehow.

Thanks for your concern.--LeFnake (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks as a CheckUser action. It could be upped to indefinite if someone wants. I doubt this person is going to change after 2 weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

LeFnake, your English is just fine and your report here was very informative. Merci beaucoup. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. LeFnake (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see only two weeks for block evading - who's the master, and was there a reason it wasn't straight to indef? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems that he did not liked the block, he removed it from his talk page... LeFnake (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Admitting sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An account created last month admitted to being a sockpuppet account by User:Sewnbegun, after I dorectly asked them through their talkpage.[110] You can check more about Sewnbegun here.[111] Based from my interaction with the sockpuppeteer, this would be their 8th Wikipedia account.Hotwiki (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wendy2024 making legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Wendy2024, a sock of User:Naderjamie6 has started to make legal threats. I believe that our policy requires us to escalate things when legal threats are made. See this diff We will not give up on our right if we have to go to court and sue every single one of you for this crime, and yes, it is a crime and unjust. Bunch of of you taking over Wiki which is suppose to be for everyone, patrolling it like a gestapos, blocking and banning people. See also this diff now bunch of gestapo are taking over banning/blocking people right and left, and deleting articles based on their prejudice. If there is any Karma in this world, any justice, those who responsible for banning us will face justice.

Long story short, this user is threatening to take Wikipedia to court over their sock block. For context, the initial block was for socking to vote stack at AfDs, however, they are insistent that they are just a bunch of mates at a library editing together. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I rejected the unblock request and pointed them out to WP:LEGAL. Concerning their unblock, they insist that during a wiki-meetup two users were using the same laptop. Whereas this could happen, if it was an organized meetup, there should be a Wiki user group, or chapter, or whatever, who organized it, and there should be some way to see whether these two users are one or two physical persons. Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Those wishing to consider unblocking these users should note that User:BonitueBera has just been blocked and is confirmed to this sock farm. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And User:Hendrea44 as well... There's so many of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

They continued to insist that they go to the court (I think they claim this is an Iraqi court - good luck with this), so I removed their talk page access, but an uninvolved admin still needs to look at their last unblock request. Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

• ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.

Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.

On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.

This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a warning for canvassing: [112] [113] [114] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A week has now passed, and Zander has elected to continue ignoring this thread. Perhaps it's too much of a reach to suggest they aren't here to be constructive, but it certainly doesn't help to think otherwise when they just refuse to engage. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave them another notice, and their response was "watch me". I'm this close to blocking as not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering they aren't willing to amend, or even to discuss amending, their behavior towards regular users such as myself or Jon698, the flagrant disrespect in that comment towards you, an admin, and similar disrespect towards Liz, another admin, seems really the only course of action. Rusted AutoParts 07:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Alright, this has gone on long enough. Given the obvious behaviorial issues here, and their ignoring concerned raised and explicitly thumbing their nose at this ANI thread while continung to edit edit and edit, I have pblocked ZanderAlbatraz1145 from articlespace indefinitely until they respond here. Once they do and the issue is dealt with, anyone can feel free to unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I acknowledge my behavior. Taking everything into account, I believe my behavior is not completely irrational. I also don't see the logic in "addressing" the "concerns" here (debating/arguing) with editors of higher power than me if we will never agree, because we never will. I don't think any edit I've ever made to a page was to destroy or worsen it, so your accusal of me not being collaborative is highly offensive, considering that on a regular basis, I am a great collaborator, I thank my editors and very often seek out to assist them with articles. They could even revert one of my edits, and we could come to a compromise/conclusion, that is not out of the ordinary as long as it is warranted. I am a flexible, malleable editor. I just don't like this I am right, your are wrong mentality. Nothing I've done illustrates a wrong view; I don't vandalize, I cite everything I do, etc., I don't seem to see the issue except for others to nitpick small issues. Every now and again you encounter that one editor, that one pain in the ass (for lack of a better phrase, I acknowledge) who is like that, the kind to ignite edit wars. This right here at the Wiki noticeboard is merely just an example of a result of something that escalated. My entire edit history will show/prove this. It is only the opinions of a select few editors that have decided to target me, with which I'm now forced to reckon with here. Doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. That was my logic in not coming here to respond before. For the record, I am responding now not to be unblocked but because I'm not exactly sure what you wanted me to say here. So I guess I'm proving a point by saying, okay, I'm here... now what? Is this really all you wanted? Just for me to acknowledge it? I was not ignoring it, I was just deciding not to engage because what good will it honestly do? Surely you're not blind enough to see that. I've said everything I've needed so say, however rude or crass, or however buried they may be, in previous edits or responses, but they seem to have gone completely ignored and not taken into account. If you look at the order and the pattern of my editing and history, you can see my behavior worsen recently as result of several factors, plus editors who will never see eye-to-eye. I have never had this type of issue before on Wikipedia, so to me, I just take this instance as a domino effect, a contributing set of circumstances resulting in me being here, right now. So, if we all just decide to be adults and move on, the ice will eventually unfreeze and things will go on back to normalcy (Normalcy as in: I will not appear on this noticeboard, just like I've never appeared on this noticeboard for the past two or so years.) Things must stop in order for them to start again. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  So "I've done nothing wrong, it's their fault" - that's not going to fly here, I'm afraid. You don't mention your explict canvassing, for one thing, and nothing about your - repeated - personal attacks. And you weren't just deciding not to engage because what good will it honestly do - you explicitly blew off a notice to come here. Even if your content was 100% squeaky clean, your conduct is most certainly not, and is very much not in line with the expectations of editors in a collaborative project, which Wikipedia is. You cannot just choose to ignore when people raise concerns about your conduct, and then posting the above screed when finally forced to confront it is not, at all, helping your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I acknowledge my canvassing, too. Better? The guy already won the battle, the page got deleted. Not sure why it's worth acknowledging. Also not sure why after four votes to keep the page were discarded, because the two editors who I did canvass genuinely believed and wanted to keep the page, and thought for themselves. Not like I fucking bribed them or persuaded them, they did what they genuinely wanted to do, to vote to keep the page. And I guess my vote and another editor's were discarded for no good damn reason, and a vote to "Burn it to ashes and then burn the ashes" (bit extreme, no?) and then one vote to Merge. So that's four Keeps, one merge, and one toss. So that's a 4.5/6 to keep, if my math is correct? I understand now that I should not have canvassed with "opinion", if I hadn't put that in the message, I'm sure the page would not have been deleted. So I paid for my mistake there. But I believe it worth it and right to inform other editors who may be of interest and it was not like I said "Vote yes or die", I just tried to spread the word and said to "help save the page". They could have voted to delete the article if they wanted to, I have no control over that. But they voted to keep it... so again, not sure what else I need to add, or what else is worth discussing. I was in the wrong by canvassing with bias, that was proven by the page deletion. Done and done. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  The deletion discussion was reopened, and the page undeleted by the initial closer. You're still inherently making it a personal issue by asserting that I "won" the discussion. This is why the canvassing is a problem. It's one thing to notify people that a page they may have a connection towards is up for deletion, and to assess whether they'd like to participate. It's another thing to paint it as "saving" a page and painting me in a negative light. This inherently biases an editor, such as with Nils, and makes it difficult to fairly count those votes as they were recruited as opposed to invited. Rusted AutoParts 03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I acknowledge the bias, but yet I understand my logic at the time. As I stated, I would have handled the situation differently in retrospect. And my wrongness about the canvassing was made clear by the then-fate of the page. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand and I acknowledge the conduct, but to me actions speak louder than words. If I react negatively, it was a result of a negative action. Nothing more, nothing less. I suppose I should learn to control it better, but like I said, I've been on edge more lately as result of all this recent garbage that's been happening. I'm not usually this unpleasant or crass or rude to other editors. Like I said, a domino effect. This is not my standard behavior, again, if you look at my edit history and put it into a percentage, it's honestly not all that often. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  "You cannot just choose to ignore when people raise concerns about your conduct, and then posting the above screed when finally forced to confront it is not, at all, helping your case." Yeah, but this is better than nothing, right? And like I said, I'm not confronting anything. I did what you wanted me to do, I'm engaging in a discussion, trying to explain myself. You said in previous messages just for me to respond here. Well, now I've done it. Now what good is it doing? I'm trying. I'm trying to discuss it. But I announce again, what good is it doing? What was the first thing I said? "I acknowledge my behavior." And you know what, I do regret some of my actions. Had I been less naive and handled the canvassing issue better, I might have saved the Guadagnino page. I don't think, however, had I been nicer to certain other editors I would have persuaded them or convinced them or been able to collaborate with them. I don't think nicer conduct there would have made a difference at all, because I tried to approach it from a nicer angle several times, but I just kept getting angrier. Made it worse and worse. Domino effect. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, frankly that just sounds like perhaps it's not the best idea to be an editor here if trying to conduct yourself civilly with someone you might wind up not being able to see eye to eye with winds up just making you angrier. No one by and large is here to "win" anything, if there's a dispute the situation is to either explain your POV and change another's mind, or to see perhaps your POV is the one needing evolving. The ultimate need is to do what's best for the page and the website. Rusted AutoParts 03:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  And, like I said, I've resolved past issues that way before. Jon698, or whatever the user's name is, resolved our beef quite peacefully and understood each other by the very end. We just had to get through the toughness. Just because of this one instance of culminating events I think is ridiculous reason to conclude that I "not be an editor here". And, again, I don't believe you understand the specific example is not the seeing eye to eye, but rather the change in my approach did nothing to dissuade the editor's view whatsoever, and the area discussed was too grey to be merely right or wrong, hence why the discussions are STILL going on. And that itself made me angrier, as seen by the edits. 'Well, I might as well just go back to being rude if this nice crap isn't doing shit', that was the logic, doesn't make sense saying it now, but I'd never thought I'd have to analyze it like this. Is this discussion helping anything? Be honest. And please tell me if I need to just quit. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one is wishing you to quit, that's something you personally would need to decide (barring of course if an admin makes that choice for you. What led to myself and Bushranger to start considering NOTHERE was the difficulty in bringing you to this thread. As they articulated, you have to engage. The ignoring over a week and subsequent refusal to do so put you inline with being NOTHERE and thus on the verge of being banned. It's not an outcome I've been rooting for, I'm disappointed it's wound up to where this thread needed to be opened. But this needed to be addressed, because your interaction with Jon698 would've ideally been the one and done, but with the antagonism pointed my way with the needless jabbing, it just had to be done. A conflict in content really should not become something where being needlessly rude is the way to approach it. That just makes anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing your point. I speak from experience, being the person being needlessly rude. Alot of could have been productive discussions or productive collaborations with other editors got spoiled because I was too easy to get hotheaded. Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  You misunderstand. I mean, is this discussion helping? Is it worth my time or are we just going in circles and should I just quit the discussion? That's what I meant. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, the idea is for the issue to be hashed out here, but it still seems you really don't have interest in doing that give this response. Rusted AutoParts 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what else needs to be said, that's what I mean. I acknowledged my faults, stated my regrets. I'm not sure what else Bushranger would like me to do. That was sort of the point in my initial message is that I already received the blows from my actions before even going on this Noticeboard, so now I have this on top of everything else. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the remarks. But I have admitted my faults, however buried they may be in "screed", as lovingly put by Bushranger. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  And you're still not getting the point, as evidenced by your comment right here. Also my wrongness about the canvassing was made clear by the then-fate of the page carries the implication that if the article had been "saved", it wouldn't have been wrong - no, your 'wrongness about the canvassing' is because it's against Wikipedia policy no matter the fate of the page. Overall the fact you still clearly consider this discussion unnecessary and a waste of time illustrates, to me at least, that your attitude here is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that comment was not meant to be rude, and I believe you're reading to much into it. But again, I could see how it could be misinterpreted, but I'm not writing a Wikipedia article here. This is a message board. I'm talking. And I more meant it to be humorous, "as lovingly put by", I don't know, I think it's funny. And my regrets of my faults are buried within these long paragraphs, believe it or not. I believe Screed is a bit harsh to call it, but I might say the same thing as an outsider, ha ha. But to be fair, it comes off as "screed" because this is a delicate topic, frankly. Everything has just been drawn out to the point of... gee, I can't even think of the right adjective... madness? Boredom? Pointlessness? Uhh... restlessness? Maybe that last one. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the counterproductivity of being rude. In a general sense though, "mak[ing] anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing [my] point," is a logical thought, and I believe that would apply to other and future scenarios in which I may disagree with other editors. I will keep this in mind, though not every editor operates on this logic. This is not assuming bad faith, but it's frankly true. However, I do not feel in this instance that being nicer would have convinced you or would have helped my case. The only thing it would change is I just don't think I'd be on this Noticeboard. You and I would still be in heavy disagreement with regards to the unnamed topic. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  You don't need to become a teddy bear when discussing an issue, you just have to not open an interaction with someone by making remarks about intelligence, and then just going about antagonizing someone if the discussion gets hardheaded. The issue was what constituted being unrealized, I don't think it would be something that was fundamentally impossible to bring about a shared consensus. Rusted AutoParts 04:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  "I don't think it would be something that was fundamentally impossible to bring about a shared consensus." You'd be surprised. An uphill battle. Not for right or wrong mind you, for consensus. I always seek to find that, I don't enjoy edit-warring. This is not fun for me. Of course, consensus is what I seek to find, a place where the page is at a general agreement at where it needs to be and why. Again, I will keep in mind the fact that being "needlessly rude" will "make anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing [my] point" for the future since there would be no point because it would be counterproductive. Even though it may not apply to every editor, in which case I would not report them because I am not that kind of editor. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I reported you because of edits like this. Straw that broke the camel's back. And frankly, it's difficult to believe consensus is what you seek because your very first edit summary pointed my way asserted you were just going to keep re-adding the deleted content back. What's ultimately being sought in this thread is, are you going to amend your behavior or no? Because this hardheaded rude approach isn't going to fly. Rusted AutoParts 04:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've stated already in this thread that I will take the rudeness into consideration and not do that approach the next time because of how sensitive everyone is. I thought I've made that clear from my first response on this thread from the beginning. Frankly, the rudeness doesn't bother me as I've experienced it back and never sought to report them, because, again, that's not the kind of editor I am. But if you're going to go out of your way to report me and drag me through this, then clearly I've offended you to the point worthy of an apology. So, I apologize. And, just for the mere fact of the time I've spent back-and-forth on this, I will rescind from being as rude in the future (but C'MON, that ten collapsible tables bit was funny! You have to admit! Even funnier that it was the "straw that broke the camel's back"- I didn't realize it would be at the time), but I will still keep my wits about me, if you know what I mean *wink* *wink* — I can't take that away! ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...so you half-apologise because it's because of everyone else, not because of you, and then, functionally, take back the apology. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a genuine understanding that you did anything wrong. You need to 'not do that approach' not because of how sensitive everyone is, and not because you [went] out of your way to report me and drag me through this, you need to not do it because it's a violation of Wikipedia policy, and realise that you're being 'dragged through this' because of your actions and your actions alone which violated that policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, yes, that reason and also the fact that it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. That's why I'm here. I would not be here if it weren't so I felt that went without saying. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  So I'm saying I will not do that approach for both reasons. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• The more reasons not to do something or to go about a certain "behavior", the better, ha ha. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I just want to point out to @ZanderAlbatraz1145 that your intent in writing a post or comment doesn't change how it's received. You only have text to communicate with others here, and you have no idea what's happening in the life of the person reading it.

You could be speaking to someone who's having a great day, or who just had the worst news - you don't know and can't know. There are millions of editors and readers, so you need to remember your audience.

In my workplace, there are a few of us with the most inappropriate sense of humour - we will joke about each others body parts, sex life etc. because we know each other that well. A few months ago, a new lad joined the team and got on with everyone and decided to join in. It didn't go well at all.

I recently had a dispute with another editor for a similar reason, he was so focused on his view that he didn't realise how it came across to someone who was in hospital undergoing tests whilst they were reading his replies. He didn't know what was happening on my end, but you need to tailor your response to be polite and respectful precisely because you can't know what is happening with your audience.

You cannot presume that other editors are ok with sharp or rude responses just because you are. They're not you.

If you can show that you appreciate and understand this fact, you'll be fine.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, thank you. But I believe my understanding and acknowledgement of others has already been established prior in the few messages above. I'm just going in circles at this point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, maybe don't talk crude sex jokes to each other and then he surprised how they are negatively received? If we all treated each other with a little more respect, like we were in a 1940s movie, and talked with some dignity, and some class, I think we'd all have a much better time and a better world. A world in which people use their words better, more effectively, more intelligently. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm...not sure what at all this has to do with anything? But I think we're at the point where you can be unblocked. Please bear in mind that your condut will be subject to scruitiny and any resumption of the disruptive behavior even if you do not personally intend it to be disruptive will result in a full block next time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I think I'll just refrain in general, 'cross the board. No pun intended. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll also take your advice and try not to become a teddy bear when discussing an issue, but rather take on the form of like a modest crow, ready to step in at any given moment and spout philosophy. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Sphinx2512 making Legal Threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [115]. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000 bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.

Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Wikipedia Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Wikipedia at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Wikipedia guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times [116] [117]? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet [118]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. [119]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later [120]. Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011[121]LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Wikipedia at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.

Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Wikipedia at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Wikipedia developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Wikipedia's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Wikipedia from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Wikipedia with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Wikipedia without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to when Wikipedia started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of this matters

I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you contend it was arbitrary? Usually there is a reasonable basis for updating HTTPS Encryption Protocols (i.e. security). Isonomia01 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Wikipedia using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Wikipedia wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Wikipedia broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What it is accidentally changing is Arabic characters to Latin characters, and probably all non-Latin characters to Latin characters. That has the potential to destroy substantial amounts of content. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Wikipedia's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It won't just be accidentally changing signatures, but accidentally changing all non-Latin characters. That is a serious matter for an editor whose subject areas include Arabic. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Some of the comments above would be very valid if I used my home computer only for editing Wikipedia, but that's most definitely not the case. I use it for lots of things, and I don't look forward to permanently disconnecting it from the Internet, which would mean significantly disrupting the way I do various things. That may be inevitably coming within a few years, but I don't feel like hastening the process now. As for buying a new computer, I did buy a Windows 10 laptop in late 2020, and it works great on public WiFi, but it's not really usefully capable of editing Wikipedia over the connection my old computer uses -- it's constantly making connections and downloading stuff in the background, and there's no way to turn that stuff off, so it overwhelms the bandwidth available. AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A Slightly Different Analysis

I concur with most of the comments that have been made, and with the general conclusion that User:AnonMoos appears to be unreasonably expecting Wikipedia and the world to accommodate to their obsolete hardware and software. However, encryption is not the problem as such. AnonMoos, as they explain, has found a workaround, which is an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. I see no evidence that it is partially Unicode-compliant. There isn't a visible encryption problem. There is a very visible Unicode problem. AnonMoos is mangling the OP's signature because the OP's signature is in Arabic. When they edit a block of text that contains the Arabic signature, they convert it into Latin characters. The conversion may be a transliteration, or it may be something else. I don't know Arabic, but I know garbling when I see it. I think that AnonMoos is incapable of editing text that contains non-Latin characters without corrupting them. Their workaround may only be problematic for editing Wikipedia because Wikipedia is the only site where they are trying both to read and to write non-Latin characters. So it is the only site where they are failing to write non-Latin characters. Wikipedia, unlike AnonMoos, is Unicode-compliant, and Unicode is a key part of its functionality, especially in certain subject areas, such as the Arabic language. If AnonMoos had tried to edit articles about the Arabic language, they probably would have corrupted them also. They may be lucky not to have tried to edit articles containing Arabic characters.

They may also be lucky to have kept obsolete hardware running for much more than five years. Their 2012 web browser had already been obsolete in 2019, but only became problematic when the encryption was upgraded (not when it was first implemented). My experience, and the experience of many, although not all, users is that hardware typically signals that it is obsolete by stopping working, often after about five years. So I have to have non-obsolete hardware, because I have to replace it. Then again, I don't know about their hardware. Maybe they are running obsolete software such as a 2012 web browser on current hardware. If so, they should move into the 2020s.

An editor wrote: I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely.. I think that the indirect method is an indirect implementation of HTTPS that breaks Unicode.

In the short run, AnonMoos should avoid editing any text that contains non-Latin characters, because they break the non-Latin characters. In the medium run, they have been warned that any corruption of Unicode in Wikipedia will lead to a block because their hardware and software is incompetent. In the medium run, they can request technical advice at the Village Pump, request a referral for a computer technician from their local electronics store, or get a modern Internet connection and modern hardware.

They don't have an encryption problem. They have worked around that with a technique that breaks Unicode. They have a Unicode problem, and Wikipedia requires Unicode compliance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's nice abstract theoretical speculation. I have to edit by making a connection from my home computer to an intermediate computer, and then this intermediate computer connects with Wikipedia. My home computer is fully capable of handling Unicode, and the intermediate computer is also fully capable of handling Unicode, but the connection between my home computer and the intermediate computer is unfortunately ISO-8859-1, and so there's not a Unicode-capable connection for every link of the chain. I have no idea how to change this -- I certainly can't do so with the software I'm currently using. I leave aside your effective insults to my intelligence (I've been fully aware of the problem from the beginning, and usually take steps to avoid it, or there would have been a loud chorus of complaints long ago, as I already said) and your meditations on bright shiny hardware that's "obsolete before I opened the box"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Put a sock in it, will you? EEng 01:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE put this ridiculous thread out of its misery?

...with the understanding that the next time Mr. Moose screws up some non-Latin characters, he'll be indeffed? Home computer, intermediate computer, what a load of bullcrap. Why are we wasting time on this? EEng 00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lavipao, POV pushing and personal attacks yet again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• POV pushing edit
• edit summary: How much is Erdogan paying you to gatekeep these wikipedia pages?

This user got blocked one week for edit warring (not even his previous personal attacks), still the first thing he do is doing the same thing. Beshogur (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#Lavipao_edit_warring_ _POV_pushing (previous) Beshogur (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Prima facie, I'd suggest a block of two weeks for the personal attack(the previous block was for 1 week). At second glance, after 89 edits, is this editor here to build an encyclopedia? --Kansas Bear 23:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Beshogur has tens of thousands of edits, all of which are explicitly removing any edits that go against the official state propaganda policies of the Turkish dictatorship. He’s quite literally the exact type of person who should be banned from the site, yet your anger is around the person pointing out the blatant censorship, not the one doing the censoring? Lavipao (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• So, their POV pushing is changing "operation" to "invasion" in this one article? Of course, the personal attack is not acceptable but some of their editing looks okay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t attack anyone personally. I simply asked this guy what salary he was getting paid by the government to maintain the correct propaganda language on pages regarding the turkish invasions on English Wikipedia.

  It seems like a full time job since he responds to edits within 15 minutes and has been reverting all edits to any pages regarding these invasions for at least 5 straight years.

  Personally I’m just wondering what a propaganda agent gets paid. I know turkeys economy is pretty weak so I can’t imagine it’s that much , but maybe I’m wrong and it’s very financially rewarding. Hence my simple question Lavipao (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Lavipao for two weeks for personal attacks. If another administrator wants to increase that block to indefinite, that's fine with me. The user was warned about making personal attacks by The Bushranger, which the user belligerently denied, and then Lavipao comes here and blatantly - and even more clearly - repeats the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armegon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Armegon has been committing multiple cases that define the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT". He committed his first case with Goro Maki where he nominated it for deletion, accusing me of treating Wikipedia as if it's a Wikia fan page, and I had asked him to close the AFD (so I could draftify it in my sandbox to avoid issues like that happening again, as if I was harassed), but he chose not to, and I decided to get consensus from him to close it myself, and he granted consensus for me to close that AFD.

Then he goes onto repeated editwarring because of a single non-free image from GvK that was being placed on the Legendary Godzilla article and the article of the Godzilla franchise, this constant edit-warring is him defining the image-behalf of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT.

• Special:Diff/1266073828: The previous post illustrates the differences and responses to two Hollywood iterations of Godzilla. This is a poor attempt to keep the GVK image - this was because Legendary's G-Man was under the section of Tristar Pictures and not Legendary Pictures
• Special:Diff/1266094010: Per MOS:IMAGEREL: “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose”. This is just there for the sake of decoration - this was because Legendary's G-Man in 2021 was at risk of deletion and I was thinking so much harder and freaking out at the same time of where to put this image.

I only wanted the GvK image to replace the Empire 2014 image because in my opinion, that image has been in the article's infobox for 10 years, which is probably too long, and so I decided that it needs to be replaced as was the case with thousands of other articles you find all across Wikipedia, I even attempted to move the 2014 image out of the infobox and into the design section under overview, but this was reverted.

After all this constant edit-warring that happened, I asked him regarding where should I put it and he claims this to me about the image saying "You shouldn't add images just because they look good", what he was saying was that because I uploaded the image, he theoretically thinks in his mind and accusing me of choosing this image because the aesthetics.

In reality, I only uploaded the image to Wikipedia because I needed to find a more recent and newer image that could replace the 2014 image in the infobox.

This is just actively malicious, and THE Wikipedia definition of the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT". GojiraFan1954 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@GojiraFan1954: You have failed to notify Armegon (talk · contribs) of this discussion, even though the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires you to do so. This is a hard requirement to opening a report here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They also failed to notify myself and another editor who helped him at the WP:TEAHOUSE, who have discussed about the topic in which he is discussing. I ended up notifying Armegon when I saw the lack of notification to me and another editor. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)in my opinion, that image has been in the article's infobox for 10 years, which is probably too long A good infobox image can be permament. There is no "schedule" for rotating out infobox images, or any images, or anything else. I honestly get the scent of assuming bad faith from this report overall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Its a bad thing? really? take a look at other wikipedia articles and each of their respective revision history and you will see that their infoboxes has their images interchanged, that's what makes articles work, and now it's a bad thing? really? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a bad thing. It's not a necessary thing just because it's been there awhile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

First, there is no essay or policy page called WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT so I have no idea what you mean when you refer to this nonexistent page. Could you be specific what you mean?

Second, I can't believe that your closure of the AFD on an article you created wasn't challenged weeks ago when you did it. That was improper as you are definitely involved here.

Finally, after reading this, it's not clear to me what your complaint is about this editor. It is not against any rules to nominate an article for an AFD discussion, it happens around 50-80 times every day. I don't understand what your dispute is about an image used in an article but that discussion should occur on the article talk page, not ANI. If there is a problem with edit-warring (which takes two editors to happen), you should report it at WP:ANEW. If you simply don't care for this editor because you have disagreements, well, you probably have to find a way to be okay with that as we all have other editors we don't get along with on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This report here, is a reason why an essay of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT should be created, so that issues like this, don't, happen, again. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question that both me and Liz have asked you. What does this nonexistent essay mean? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@GojiraFan1954 Do you want an essay to be written because you think that you're being personally targeted? If so, can you explain why you think that? An essay won't help, I've already explained in Teahouse that other essays exist that go over the same point so that won't make any difference. We need to understand why you're focusing on this in particular and what you want to happen. I can also see that the diffs are for edits from different IP addresses. Are you saying they targeted you personally despite each edit being from a different IP address? How did they target you personally in that case? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was targeted personally, because I just want to be friendly to this community, and not a joke. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the essay of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, I will write the essay myself. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If you write an essay as a reaction to a believed wrong, there's good odds it'll be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This began as the OP asking on AN then Teahouse about what category the redlinked term would go in - upon questioning we realised that the crux is because the OP feels aggrieved that their edits are being reverted: ”I have accepted their apology. But I'm just upset right now that most of the images I uploaded are being vetoed because they think that their past versions are better." [[122]] Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, just so I totally understand things, there is no essay with this abbreviation that has ever been written and the OP has no plans to write it themselves. So, it's just a meaningless reference and the OP feels targeted? It would have been helpful if this had simply been stated rather than referring to nonexistent pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That confused me also, I thought they wanted to create the page then it exploded onto ANI when we asked for clarification. I just noticed that their diffs are from IP edits at different addresses, so I don't know how they can say they were personally targeted? There are a few instances where their edits are spread out across IP's/this account so it's hard to track, but it does look like the same person in hindsight. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, also created by the OP, earlier today. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to add that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goro Maki, I did apologize to @GojiraFan1954: for insinuating a fan-boy driven editorial mindset and articulated that I could've phrased it better, even offered my help to them. Because they're new I've cited essays and guidelines when reverting some of their edits, it wasn't done out of "I DON'T LIKE IT" etc. In regards to this GVK image, I've made it clear to them that a replacement was unwarranted since a Fair Use Rationale (FUR) image of the same character already existed (it's not even my upload) and was just fine as is [1].

I made it clear to an IP (that I now suspect may have been GojiraFan1954) what MOS:IMAGEREL states regarding image purposes and relevancy; they kept adding the GVK image with no encyclopedic relevancy to warrant its inclusion. I also informed GojiraFan1954 of MOS:IMAGEREL on my own talk page, [2] but it seems they ignored my advice since we're now here. Regardless, I repeated this again to another IP [2] (which was probably GojiraFan1954 too). There seems to be a pattern of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to citing guidelines to GojiraFan1954. As the sequence of events shows (check the revision histories), I informed GojiraFan1954 many times, in good faith, on edit summaries and my talk page why their edits were not constructive, cited guidelines to help them understand, but they ignored them; I even offered advice how the GVK image can be informative to warrant its inclusion -- but again, also ignored.

It almost seems as if GojiraFan1954 is WP:NOTHERE since they keep ignoring essays, conduct, and guidelines when they're cited to them. Armegon (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I also should point out that @GojiraFan1954: seems to be taking things way too personal just because I undid some non-constructive edits and nominated an article of theirs for deletion. GojiraFan1954 must understand that other editors will also revert/undo their edits if they feel they're not constructive. GojiraFan1954 must understand they're not infallible, they will make mistakes that other editors will fix or revert. And GojiraFan1954 must understand they're not exempt from following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines -- which seems like they're trying to avoid by writing a new essay/policy? I'm not sure what the endgame is there. Armegon (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm not exempt from following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I'm not stupid, your only saying that so you could make me appear or look more duller than you think. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This is really more than enough from you about this nonsense. This is the third thread you've opened today about this, nobody seems to agree with... whatever point it is you are tryhing to make. I'm closing this. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 06:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack by Thebrooklynphenom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thebrooklynphenom responded today to a series of warnings about incivility, disruptive editing and COI with: You know exactly what your kind is doing and you’re going to see very soon the end result of your racist antics. Leading up to this personal attack, the editor has:

• Introduced serious formatting errors into an article and broke an AfD link, raising WP:CIR questions.
• Added a non-MOS-compliant lead sentence using the following edit summary: resist White colonial Eurocentric disrespect for African American clerics. This is a pattern of racism and a byproduct of white-washed persons misportraying the subject.
• Refused to answer questions (diff, diff) about an apparent conflict of interest.
• Despite claiming to be an editor of many pages, refused to answer a question about alternative accounts since this account had up to that point only edited three pages.
• Inserted unsourced promotional peacock language into a BLP, along with adding self-published sources that do not comply with WP:BLPSELFPUB.
• Tiptoed up to the edge of a legal threat.

I think the personal attack at the top is beyond the pale, but all told, it seems like this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one week. Probably should be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. What do you think about semi-protecting Darel Chase (bishop) for a week as well to prevent logged out edit warring? Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  We don't protect articles preemptively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3R / Edit Warring Sharnadd

• Sharnadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sjö (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (involved editor, but not accused edit warring)

BRIGHT LINE edit warring from Sharnadd with the most recent example being over at Cucumber sandwich with these three consecutive reverts: [123] [124] [125] is the most recent examples. Despite attempts at consensus forming, they continue to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They did bring it to the article talk page [126] but then User:Sjö reverted the article, to which, again Sharnadd reverted for the third time. There is an extensive edit reverting going on between these two users. While Sjo is probably right from a policy standpoint for why Sharnadd's edits should be reverted, they are also wrong for edit-waring and continuing to revert articles, instead of escalating them here. I became aware of some of this after a prior ANI almost a month ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174 § Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR. Sharnadd was previsouly blocked in June for Edit Warring, and have received multiple notices about edit warring behavior on their talk page since then, including 7 various warnings in the last two months from 7 different experienced editors. Sharnadd editing behavior appears to be that of someone who feels they OWN articles which have English/British origins and can contribute because WP:IKNOWITSTRUE. Their history of adding or changing information without reliable sources goes all the way back to one of their first talk page notices about missing RS, and they have failed to get the point ever since. Since they were previously blocked for 48 hours I suggest a slightly longer block to help them get the point about edit warring. TiggerJay (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see Sjö edit warring. I do see Sharnadd edit-warring and refusing to listen. Also their comment on Talk:Cucumber sandwich seems to imply the opposite of what they're edit-warring about! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, yes to be clear I would say Sharnadd is the ONLY ONE who is edit-warring, and Sjö is "simply" involved in this situation but not exhibiting edit warring behavior. The actual behavior (to me) seems to be that they are rather fixated on adding/removing information to all sorts of things British. Often claiming this were first British and not American such as Fried Chicken [127] and Ham sandwich where made multiple attempts to change the lead to British sandwich of ham between sliced bread [128], then after revert, The ham sandwich is a common type of sandwich [129] and [130], which is effectively another RRR (again a place where Sjö, reverted all three). Also where Sharnadd insist that Carrot Soup is English [131] and [132]. On their own talk page they claim that they are not violating 3R because I can revert edits that you incorrectly removed and also on Sjo's talk asserting that evidence need to flow the other direction. [133] 01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC) TiggerJay (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not refusing to listen. When I changed the Pullman loaf to the more generic term of a loaf of bread which is what is used in the UK for a cucumber sandwhich and also appears to be what is used in the USA and you changed it back saying it was independently verified I did ask you for sources which you did not give. I reverted back with sources showing that a loaf of bread is used in the UK. Sjo reverted back stating that he wasn't going to bother reading the sources. I removed the information as the Pullman loaf still did not have sources to show that type of loaf is used in a cucumber sandwhich. Sharnadd (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It does seem that tiggerjay was involved led in WP:IKNOWITTRUE behaviour on this occasion as you wanted information to remain on the page which had no citations as you said it was independently viable but yet you didn't bother to verify it. Sharnadd (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As you have just stated on sjo discussion page that sjo was correct as it is the policy to revert sourced information without actually reading the sources. Would it not be better to have the discussion on one page rather than you commenting here and also commenting over there Sharnadd (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ras I asked on sjo page just now where is it the policy to revert sourced information without reading the sources back to unsourced information. I had already started a discussion. Sjo should have joined it rather that just revert with the remark that he wasn't bothering to read the sources Sharnadd (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This is simply about your edit warring behavior, and not the venue to continue the discussion about your arguments over why Pullman is or is not an appropriate inclusion to the article. Even if your reasons were valid, it does not fall under the exceptions when it comes to the bright line of edit warring. However, your responses here continue to demonstrate your lack of competence in this matter. However, I would not be opposed to an uninvolved editor or admin reraising the CIR concerns. TiggerJay (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

So why do feel I am involved in edit warring as I reverted information on cucumber sandwhich once then added citations but you feel sjo is not when he has reverted information on other subjects three times Sharnadd (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did read the policies, yes you did revert a good faith edit as you stated WP:IKNOWITSTRUE without actually adding anything to the original unsourced information. Sharnadd (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel people adding sources to information when it has been reverted without the reverter actually looking at the information is edit warring but someone who reverts something several times on a different page is simply being involved in the situation Sharnadd (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Once you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, you discuss, you do not simply revert back. And you do not have any exception from edit-warring policies because you are "revert[ing] edits that [someone else] incorrectly removed". Sjö made one revert on Cucumber sandwich over the last 24 hours. You made three. Your edits are controversial and you are the only person pushing them. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I have opened a discussion on it already . I was talking about a different page that tiggerjay brought up where sjo did several reverts I understand now that adding sources to show where changes come from is seen as reverting an edit. I will leave it the 24 hr period before I add citations showing evidence in the future Sharnadd (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger from both this reply above, and this talk page one, I believe they still do not get the point, and fully intend to keep introducing the same information believing that they only need to add citations showing evidence. TiggerJay (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I stated that if an edit with sources is reverted due to you personally believing the original is correct, as that is the way it is referred to in your country like you stated. If it is reverted because they don't want to check the sources like sjo stated, I would start a discussion page or like the page that was linked make a new edit. This would be after having a discussion and asking for the reason for your beliefs and some evidence.

It is covered under bold again. I did not state the edit would be helpful same our that the sources would be. I am happy to apply more sources or rewording of edits.

I did ask you how to go forward if the person who reverts will not engage in the discussion.

As an example with cucumber sandwich which is seen generally as a British dish. When I wanted to change this to a loaf of bread as this is what is used in Britain but also covers what is used in other countries. As you have stated you reverted as you believed that it was independently verifiable that the American Pullman loaf was used in making the sandwich after you reverted I changed the edit adding sources.

I now understand that I should have asked you to give more sources and to consider if a more generic term can be used before changing it with sources to show my evidence. As you explained you preferred Pullman as that is what you believed to be true from your experience of the sandwich in your country. You kindly provided two links to an American recipe and a link to a french type of bread. After I changed it to add more sources sjo changed it back as he didn't want to read my sources. I had already started a discussion page but if this is not responded to by the reverter what is the best next course of action. Sharnadd (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sharnadd:, this is your final warning. Drop the stick. If you leave it 24 hrs next time before editing with sources, you will be blocked. You must discuss and establish a consensus for the changes you want to make, and if you cannot establish that consensus, you must not make the changes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

i have explained above that is not what I meant. As stated on the link you helpfully provided I had started a discussion page. If this is not replied what is the best course forward. The link you provided seems to.suggest making another edit was permissible. If a reasonable length of time is given and that edit is not the same and adds more sources to show evidence is it acceptable to still edit on that page. What is the best way forward If a person is just reverting to earlier information that does not actually apply to the article, or because they do not like someone editing a page regardless of if the edits are correct but will not discuss this or try and reach a compromise. If there another discussion board to bring it up on or do you just leave the page altogether and hope that someone in the future corrects it Sharnadd (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If literally everybody else holds position A on content, and you hold position B, it's a sign that you might, possibly, be the one not making correct edits, and you drop the stick and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

True, thanks for your help I was just wondering in this case where one person makes a revert as they personally believe something that was originally posted and unsourced to be true and state it's verified without evidence and you show evidence to show that a more generic term is used in many countries including the country of origin rather than a type from the country of the reverter. Once the generic evidence is show and this is then reverted by a different person who makes reverts as they can't be bothered to check sources and won't have a discussion on this is there anywhere to take the discussion. Is there a way to stop people just reverting everything they don't like if they won't join a discussion. Sharnadd (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith and drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Dropping it I'm not assuming bad faith just when it is shown I with there was some from of dispute resolution to stop people from stonewalling articles Sharnadd (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage pursuing a dispute when you say you are dropping the stick but there is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as a place to resolve differences if you can't come to an agreement on the article talk page. It requires the cooperation from other editors though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Great thanks just for future reference Sharnadd (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)