Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was p-blocked from article space in August 2023: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12#August_2023 and unblocked in December: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted for UPE and problematic sourcing. However their promises less than three months later are resoundly and regularly broken: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Please_stop_the_COI_editing You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. might be believable with a new editor, but not with someone of Greg's history. User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Hazel_Watrous, immediately after the block was lifted shows their ongoing issues with sources have not improved and there's more of the same at: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Draft:Santa_Clara_Verein. Too much editor time and energy is spent trying to fix Greg's content when it's clear he has no interest in changing his behavior. This is especially problematic when he's paid and volunteer time has to be spent cleaning up. I believe it's time to re-instated the p-block which will allow him to use edit requests and article talk pages to propose his edits as well as improve his articles in draft space, which has been suggested multiple times.

Note I'm not going to ping anyone but the un/blocking admins as there are fewer editors supporting Greg's reinstatement than opposing and I want to avoid any indication of canvassing. I will of course notify him directly on his talk. Thank you! For the purposes of disclosure, I'm noting I did just !vote delete in an article of theirs at AfD but my proposal would allow them to continue participating there so I don't think there's an issue. Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COurtesy pings to @Drmies and @PhilKnight as noted Star Mississippi 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging Graywalls too, who deserves a medal for their work cleaning up. I know this is from last year, from before the block, but still. Who'd have thunk that a longterm editor would write like that? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In my own defense, the above statements are not correct regarding no interest to change my behavior. I do have a keen interest in changing my behavior! I am not doing any paid editing. I have written over 400 articles and have been helping to cleanup articles with tags. Since November 2023, I have written 11 new articles, 8 have been reviewed and accepted into the article space. In January and February 2024 alone, I have cleaned over 30 articles. I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing and have worked hard to earn trust again. I have consistently used the review process and have responded to requests from my fellow editors. An article-space block will limit my ability to help cleanup articles and make improvements to existing articles. Wikipedia should be an open collaborative place where our editors are supportive of one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing any paid editing. Then what about Nyombi Morris, Jin Koh, Zearn, Robert W. Smart, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, and Gary Hugh Brown? On the lattermost two, you directly reverted to restore disputed material on your paying clients' articles as recently as January 28th, which one other editor said was "rather objectionable" while another simply called it "outrageous". Left guide (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done any paid editing since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023. Since then I have followed the guidelines and heped write Wikipedia articles, update existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. Yes, I did try to update two articles with inline "requested better sources needed" edits, not realizing it would be a conflict of interest. I realize now that it was not OK and have since use the Edit Request process. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and User_talk:Greghenderson2006#January_2024? You should not be directly editing anywhere that you have a COI given your ongoing misunderstanding of primary, secondary and reliable sourcing. It seems you continually need to toe the line. Also, your comment below re: AfD (although I'm not proposing a block from there) is disingenuous. People should not need to repeat themselves or cite a policy. You have a COI and are a paid editor. Of course you have a vested interest in keeping the article. It must be disclosed. Star Mississippi 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you not realize it would be a conflict of interest to restore validly disputed material by making direct reverts on articles you are being paid to edit? If somehow that's actually true, that raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re-reading Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 where Possibly noted They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting. and Greg followed up with I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future when Left guide had to make this disclosure for Greg today. Further to my thinking that they have neither the intention nor the willingness to follow our guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Untrue, I am willing to follow the guidelines. In the above case, I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. If this is the policy, I will follow this in the future. Please understand that I am willing to follow the guidelines and appreciate the freedom to edit and write articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Greghenderson2006 has said here I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. But in July 2020 he was specifically asked Why is it so hard to disclose on AFD pages that you have a conflict, or give us a list of articles you have a conflict with? and replied These rules of WP:COI and WP:AFD are somewhat new to me. I am still learning. So bear with me.] [1] It was also pointed out at the time that that was seven years after he had first been warned about COI editing. And yet now he is saying that 3.5 years later again, after dozens of back and forths on this topic with multiple editors, that we should still WP:AGF that he was not "fully aware" of this. I also note this discussion from August last year about paid editing where he said The omission of disclosure concerning payments and conflicts of interest appears to have endured for the past year until you raised the matter here. Frankly, I had concerns about drawing attention to the articles, which led me to avoid addressing the issue altogether. Moving forward, I commit to strictly following the COI guidelines. This reads to me as demonstrating clear awareness of the guidelines but a decision to deliberately "avoid addressing" them, and again came with a clear commitment that the guidelines would be strictly followed, yet they have demonstrably been ignored again and again. I'm sorry to say I have very little patience or good faith left here. Melcous (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are rehashing old issues and that since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023, I have followed the guidelines and have written some decent Wikipedia articles, updated existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. I am not perfect, I realize I should always disclose my COI and not edit pages or vote on Afd without disclosing this first. I feel these incidents do not warrant blocking me from writing on the main article space. Look at my user page and you will realize I am making an honest effort to write and update articles and have a long history of contributions to this wonderful encylopedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the evidence of chronic ongoing competence concerns raised at Talk:Joseph W. Post House, I believe the behavior of this user should continue being reviewed and discussed here before this archives. Pinging @Graywalls, Melcous, and Netherzone: who are involved there, and have been tirelessly cleaning up after (and trying to mentor) this user. Left guide (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The oldest warning about COI actually goes back 14 years to 2012: [2], the first warnings about UPE go back 12 years to 2012 regarding a since deleted article: AFD [3]; follow-ups by closing admin: [4], [5], [6]. And the first warning about removing maintenance tags goes back 17 years to 2007: [7]. I don't have the time to into the incompetent sourcing that has cost volunteers hours of volunteer time. I am sorry to say that do not think that Greghenderson2006 will ever change his ways, as he has been apologizing for repeating the same behaviors for over a decade. Heartfelt sounding apologies or acting clueless should not be a strategy to game the system. Just weighing in here because I was pinged. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of criticizing past behavior, let's focus on finding solutions to prevent similar issues in the future. I am commited to providing WP:RS and following the WP:PILLARS. Since October 2023, I have written 10 new articles that have been peer-reviewed. Since January 2024, I have contributed to and helped clean up 50 articles. My commitment to Wikipedia guideines and desire to improve my editing skills is important to me. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite mainspace block. I do not find Greg's explanations convincing. He has repeatedly affirmed that he will abide by the rules for COI editing, but he claims to not have an understanding of those same rules every few years (per Melcous). On February 9 in this discussion, he claimed I am not doing any paid editing. Yet, on January 28—less than two weeks before he made that claim—he added improperly sourced material back to two articles he wrote for paid clients (per Left guide), and he now claims that he was unaware that that would constitute COI editing. Greg has already been blocked from the mainspace for UPE and sourcing issues, and he immediately continued the same behavior when the block was lifted (per Star Mississippi). At this point, an indefinite mainspace block is needed to prevent continued COI disruption; Greg should still be allowed to make edit requests and discuss other issues on article talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite mainspace block, or indefinite block in general as this behaviour is well beyond what usually rates just getting kicked off the encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite mainspace block. Looking at just his talk page I stopped counting the number of times editors have patiently explained why not to do something, Greg has agreed to not do that thing, and a very short time later Greg is found to be doing the thing again. The commitments and promises are unfortunately not something we can rely on any longer. Greg may be genuinely forgetting or misunderstanding, but CIR and I don't believe his actions live up to his words. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite mainspace block or indefinite sitewide ban. I just spent some time looking at this, examining numerous edits not mentioned here, and I see that their behaviour has not changed much at all since they were unblocked in December 2023. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an indefinite mainspace block or an indefinite site ban. This is based on all of above and the vast number of concerns on his talk page and archives (and article talk pages). The behaviors still exist today even after multiple concerns being communicated over the years, a block, and many editors devoting time and attention to trying teach and mentor this editor for longer than a decade. It's a huge time sink for the community. Problems persist re: COI, UPE, repeated use poor-quality sources and writing puffed-up or promotional content that is an exaggeration of or doesn't exist in the sources, or is original research. It seems clear that CIR and IDHT are also relevant. Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was long due as SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to avoid scrutiny for a long period by choosing not to archive their talk page messages, notices, and warnings. Instead, they have chosen to display only barnstars, praises, etc., creating a false impression for any editor who might have concerns regarding their editing behavior. They have been given enough WP:ROPE to mend their ways and become a productive editor rather become a massive WP:TIMESINK, don a rhino skin as they say [8], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([9]), be uncivil ([10], [11], [12]), pass comments, or just ignore. They passed comment like "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything they would not like about someone" against me on 6 February 2024 to which I asked them to stop [13] (and @Edwardx: who agreed with me by sending a thanks), but they still repeated the offensive comments in an other form and said "You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". on 7 February 2024 in an edit summary, violating WP:SUMMARYNO. I'm deeply hurt by this and felt like they are trying to drive away editors that doesn't agree with their definition of "truth", regardless of what reliable references say or write. I again tried to resolve this and asked them to stop [14] and in reply they said "Please grow up, there is no personal attack in it.". This shouldn't be tolerated and should be enough to sanction them.

User:SheriffIsInTown apparently doesn't care what the community thinks about them and uses sick quotes like "It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail." to describe culture on Wikipedia. It is also unfortunate that they take community sanctions imposed on them as a joke, (like ban on them editing Muhammad (imposed on 16 January 2016 by @HighInBC: and arbitration block imposed by @BU Rob13:), and displays them as some kinds of medals of honor.

Other recent issues in span of a month

• On 18 January 2024, @Jacobolus: raised an issue with them regarding their use of refill script You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results to prop up edits counts but most of them were unproductive edits. Instead of apologizing and helping Jacobolus clean up the mess they created, they wrote an AI-generated rap to mock them.
• On 22 January 2024, someone raised an issue with them regarding the use of WP:LLM ([15]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([16]) and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apparently they also don't know what the spamming is. The issue was regarding their use of ChatGPT to generate a rationale to nominate Wikipedia articles: i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awrangzib Faruqi, generate a lot of law-related articles with AI. It is abundtly clear that they used ChatGPT to do all this and even didn't acknowledge the warning. They just don't care.
• On 30 January 2024, @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: had enough of this (hurt by them like me) and complained to them what is their real issue to which they wrote another a rant and again tried to impose what is their definition of truth. A day ago, they reverted User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's edits without a reason [17].
• On 1 February 2024, they joined unreferenced articles drive to prop up the edits count but soon they created more work for volunteers than they contributed and were kindly asked by @Broc: and @Altamel: to slow down ([18]). Another time sink.
• On 3 February 2024, they downplayed User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's work on a list and claimed that they were already working on that list for a few weeks (without providing any evidence like sandbox) and went on to use terms and sentences like "try to do better job", "It seems you beat me to it by simply creating a separate article that looks somewhat clumsy", "You ought to have demonstrated politeness and respect by communicating with the editors who dedicated hours to the actual work, suggesting the creation of a separate article to acknowledge their contribution", and "there are certain manners we should all adhere to as human beings" See User_talk:Saad_Ali_Khan_Pakistan#1970_members_list.
• On 6 February 2024, they started to edit war with me ([19], [20]) and insists to add a section titled "Alleged extramarital affair" on a private woman's biography based on primary references, such as an interview given by her ex-husband after 6 years when military started the crackdown on Imran Khan. See Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. It is another time sink created by them to waste community's time - I've asked for independent opinion on multiple noticeboards.
• Since 7 February 2024, they are reverting ([21], [22], [23], [24]) well-cited information that summarizes the article in the lead that PTI intra-party elections case ruling was controversial (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and was influenced by the military of Pakistan. They dismiss all the reliable references as WP:FRINGE and cited essay like WP:STATUSQUO when in actual I'm just summarizing the body and citing additional references for the verification. They even moved war when a move discussion is going on [25].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([26]) to which they haven't replied.
• The massive disruptive editing from them is on 2024 Pakistani general election where they are trying to censor anything related to Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as if this site is operated by the military of Pakistan, contorary to the fact that reliable publications in the whole world are describing the PTI-backed candidates as a separate group and a clear consensus on the talkpage is that we should include them, see Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Should_PTI_be_included_in_the_Infobox. They are still edit warring ([27], [28], [29]).

• On 9 February 2024, @Saqib: warned them to stop removing referenced information on Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Removing_rigging_information. That information is from reliable publications such as The Economist, Time, France24, but according to them these sources are "speculative" and "we shouldn't blindly include wild accusations based solely on speculative reports; not everything reported in the media is suitable for an encyclopedia." They are speaking the language of the Pakistani military establishment and attempting to impose Pakistan's censorship standards on Wikipedia which is against liberal norms. War Wounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor who almost always agree with them repeating similar narratives, and is editing from a mobile device like SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that they are either collaborating offline to establish a false narrative on Wikipedia articles or are the same person. I ask the community to review them concurrently with User:SheriffIsInTown as well.

Remedy

All of these concerns converge on a few topics, such as politics of Pakistan, blasphemy ([30]) towards which they have a strong bias and couldn't contribute constructively. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the most precious thing and a deliberative approach to create work for others and waste community's time is a serious issue for which we have to take some kind of action. I'll leave it to the community to discuss the necessary measures, but I suggest the following restrictions at a minimum:

• Topic ban from articles related to politics, blasphemy, and restrict them to use semi-automated tools to do quick edits in general.
• Obligate them to engage in discussion with fellow editors constructively (i.e. cite proper diffs and independent references, rather than making awkward arguments) and avoid incivility.
• Require them to archive all past talk page messages and continue doing so in the future, especially for warnings, notices, and noteworthy discussions.

Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, while they didn't double-check or clean up all of the citations they had twiddled – hundreds to thousands of which were never checked by anyone else, with likely a substantial proportion of regressions – SheriffIsInTown was at least somewhat responsive to talk page discussion, and did make some effort to fix edits where the problems and appropriate solutions were explicitly explained. Since then, they seem to have stopped trying to do script-assisted citation changes. If they refrain from further masses of script-assisted edits going forward I won't have any personal problem with them. I can't really comment on the Pakistan politics stuff. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, due to having been away from WP for some time, I'm not familiar with the cases put forward above except that I find SheriffIsInTown's editing approach on the 2024 Pakistani general election page quite amusing. I returned to WP yesterday after hearing reports that individuals were tampering with the election page in an attempt to censor information. To my dismay, I found that it was indeed true. I suggest If SheriffIsInTown or any editor continue with this editing style, I strongly recommend implementing a topic ban. I agree with what User:HistoriesUnveiler said we don't have enough time to keep engaging in pointless discussions/arguments with someone who has clear POV agenda. SheriffIsInTown suggests that the Pakistani military must admit to engaging in election rigging before we can include those credible news reports in the article. Otherwise, there's no point in even mentioning them. It's as if the military has acknowledged in the past their involvement in election rigging. The Pakistani news media is forbidden from explicitly labeling PTI-backed candidates as such, for apparent reasons. However, if foreign media is openly acknowledging them as such, why are we hesitating to do the same? Are we here to serve the Pakistani government and censor information? Is this website run by the Pakistani government, for heaven's sake? --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's evident how he quietly removed Imran Khan's statement [from jail], which was well-referenced and unrelated to rigging. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024 Elections PTI gave tickets to its candidates and just before elections Election commission, whose main duty is to conduct "Free and Fair Elections" went to Supreme Court against PTI and Supreme court gave ruling to take back PTI's Bat symbol because PTI party elections were not valid. Another party ANP also didn't conducted their party elections which was only fined PKR 20,000 by the ECP and ECP also ruled that ANP should conduct Party elections after elections of 2024 and their symbol "Lantern" was not taken from them. See Reference[31]

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf being the largest party of the country deserves to be added in election Info box because it received most number of seats across the country and although PTI candidates ran as Independents but they were backed by and supported by PTI party and they received PTI tickets before the SC ruling. Many prominent and Independent news sources of the World and Pakistan stated "PTI-backed Independents" and differentiated them from other Independents. Here in Wikipedia, which is an International and Independent platform we were discussing on this topic to add PTI backed Independents in election boxes but it was opposed again and again. Western World (United States, United Kingdom and European Union) expressed concerns over lack of level plating field, fairness of elections and undue restrictions of freedom of expression. See[32]

Removing Imran Khan's statement from jail is against freedom of expression and showing real information to the readers of Wikipedia because people of Pakistan has given mandate to Imran Khan and his statement should be added with reference from valid reference. Reference from International Media should also be added on election rigging and human rights in the country as well.

It was my first time working on election page of Pakistan during current event time. I started adding election boxes(details of candidates by votes, % etc) which sheriff reverted by saying that it is against neutrality to add election boxes before elections, so I stopped working on it. When I worked on making List of members of the 5th National Assembly of Pakistan and I copied names of elected members from 1970 Elections page and I worked to modify it by adding party colors to the table, adding districts and divisions of East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) at that time, Districts of West Pakistan, separating elected members from members elected on by-elections adding a separate section "Membership changes", adding Members elected on Women seats and also added members names of Patuakhali district. but still he stated "Dummy edit for attribution". Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The reported editor has a long history at ANI, so others well versed in it are likely to chime in. But my first observation is that OP has a rather precocious editing history, creating articles and initiating page moves within five days of account creation (and within their first twenty edits). Grandpallama (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama, I'm a MediaWiki developer, so I'm familiar with the platform. Before the creation of this account, I edited as an IP editor, so I'm familiar with the main guidelines as well. I mainly created this account to create or edit content considered censored in Pakistan, and could have repercussions (see Enforced disappearances in Pakistan), so I don't want to reveal my public location and IP. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoriesUnveiler: It's difficult to grasp how a MediaWiki developer could be so knowledgeable about what's going-on on Wikipedia. You seem to possess more knowledge about SheriffIsInTown than I do, but that's beside the point. It's good to know that you're here to edit content perceived as censored in Pakistan. However, I also feel your attempt to remove BLP on Bushra Bibi is also viewed as censorship, IMO. --Saqib (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge about SheriffIsInTown in form of diffs is public. Any one can access/collect it using the software. I spend a day to go through their history and collect the diffs, just to stop the disruption. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: HistoriesUnveiler and Saqib had content dispute with me which they took to ANI. HistoriesUnveiler, a 12 day account starts changing article content massively disregarding already established consensus, when countered by me, they could not get through their edits due to lack of consensus, Saqib ends their long break and decide to help them out, the content dispute ends at ANI instead of them resolving that on talk pages or engaging official content dispute mechanisms such as WP:DRN. Further than that if an admin finds anything questionable or objectionable, please ping me and ask, and I'll gladly provide clarification. Otherwise, I prefer to dedicate my time to enhancing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of essays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that despite being on a wikibreak, I've been intermittently active on WP. I'm not here to support User:HistoriesUnveiler or anyone else as you claim without any evidence. I fully agree that HistoriesUnveiler should have sought resolution through WP:DRN instead of bringing the issue here. I've no issues as long you refrain from removing properly sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that users are leaving messages on the talk pages of both Sheriff and War Wounded, asking them why they are actively interfering in the process of inserting crucial information which must be available to the average reader (such as the claims of the military rigging the election, which is true, and the refusal to insert Imran Khan in the election box), but these two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages, thus there is a missing confrontation which further makes it difficult to address these problems. VosleCap (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VosleCap: Your comment is not clear to me. Who is inserting crucial information to pages and which two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages? --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, disruptive editing and incivility history is too long, which we cannot resolve through WP:DRN. The topic ban on politics-related articles is necessary. They have a long history here: IBAN from Dresser, POV-pushing on Afghan president's WP:BLP, abusing an editor in Pashto, harrasement of @Sminthopsis84: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User_page_and_actions,_User:SheriffIsInTown, attempts to remove word Islamist from a militant's biography, and describe Hussain Haqqani as a traitor and incivility issues with @Kautilya3:. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I was specifically tagged here I will respond. This will be my only comment on this issue unless asked for more information. I have 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault watchlisted and saw and edit war taking place between SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler. I started a discussion on the article talk page, something that should always be done before an edit war escalates to the point it did. Neither editor was blatantly adding or removing vandalism. As stated there, Sherriff removed some very obvious misrepresentations when you actually read the source material. The misrepresentations were caused by previous good faith attempts at simplifying the wording in that section. The problem is that the edits changed what was being said. I cautioned Sheriff to maybe do a little deeper dive, it took me less than a minute, to find out the history of that section. The editor that made the edits responded and we are going to both work together on restoring the correct information. I am not aware nor do I want to be involved in any further dispute between these two editors. I only wanted the edit warring to stop. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If I've previously edited a page, I typically review the edit history starting from my last edit. However, I hadn't edited this page before, and I encountered objectionable text while researching for any existing article on Salman Akram Raja, whom I was planning to create an article about. Raja is known for his advocacy for human rights and women’s rights, but the text in that article falsely accused him of victim-blaming, which seemed inaccurate. Recognizing this serious violation of the WP:BLP policy, I concluded that it had been added by someone to discredit Raja and proceeded to remove it. HistoriesUnveiler had already been involved in conflicts with me on other articles and wikihounded me to the 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault page. They began restoring the BLP violation without consideration, seemingly to prolong their battleground behavior. Given their wikihounding, I didn't believe they would be receptive to reason when it came to this matter, otherwise I would have attempted to engage them on talk. Since then, I have revisited the page and restored the text to its original wording, effectively removing the BLP violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading all above details, In short I agree with SheriffIsInTown in a way that Saqib and HistoriesUnveiler both have many behaviourial issues which cause suspision and disruption. I feel both of these have biased views dening nuetrality. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hard to see this comment as anything other than retaliatory for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LingoSouthAsia_reported_by_User:Saqib_(Result:_Declined). Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was tagged in OP's post, so I will add my comment. SheriffIsInTown participated in the WP:FEB24 drive, adding dozens of dubious sources to pages of villages and railway stations in Pakistan. After it was repeatedly pointed out in the talk page, they stopped using those sources and continued editing as nothing ever happened, without ever looking back on previous edits. The result: 100+ poorly sourced articles that will probably never be cleaned up (I started doing so and it's a massive undertaking). While the user has been responsive, they have not shown an attitude of being able to recognize and correct their mistakes. Broc (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The aim of WP:FEB24 was to diminish the unreferenced backlog, which stretched back to December 2007 (17 years old). My intention in participating in the drive was solely to provide genuine assistance. The village articles pertained to legally recognized locations, and the sources I added were not for contentious material; rather, they simply verified the existence of these places and their population. The population census data is compiled by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics and was copied by a third-party website. By adding sources to this third-party website, I effectively removed these pages from the unreferenced backlog. While more sources could potentially be added in the future, I believe this was sufficient to address the backlog for now. I intend to continue working on articles related to Project Pakistan, and those articles now being on my watchlist will certainly be revisited and improved upon. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "third-party website" is a personal blog [33] and definitely not a WP:RS as has been explained over and over again in your talk page and on the drive talk page. Pakistani census data is officially available (as you have yourself used this as a source on later pages), yet you are not willing to correct or even admit your mistakes.

  On several ([34] [35] [36] and many more) railway station pages you added a fan club as a source. Again, it was pointed out, you stopped adding the source but never admitted your mistake or backtracked.

  There is no point in discussing content here as it's not the right venue and you have had all the opportunities to express yourself; I am slowly adding {{Unreliable sources}} to many of the pages you edited as part of the drive, but this goes to prove the point of OP here, your editing behavior causes huge time sinks. Broc (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Within WikiProject Pakistan, there are over 100,000 articles, many of which are in a subpar condition, written in language that may not meet English proficiency standards, as English is not the first language for many Pakistani editors. A large portion of these articles lack proper sourcing, fail to adhere to style guidelines, and have been left stagnant after initial creation by transient editors. WikiProject Pakistan requires extensive improvements, and with that being said, small village articles and railway stations were not high on my list of priorities. I came across them during the drive and attempted to locate better sources, but encountered difficulties due to the unavailability of the Pakistan Railway website and anomalies in Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data. As a result, I resorted to sources that, while not entirely reliable, did not contain incorrect information in my assessment. Due to these source-related challenges, I chose not to actively participate in the competition aspect of the drive, as it would have been unfair to others who were able to provide better sources. Outside of the drive, I have other high-priority tasks, such as election coverage and reducing the article size of Pakistan, which has over 15,000 words of readable prose. However, over the course of my editing endeavors, I do intend to enhance many articles within WikiProject Pakistan, including those related to villages and railway stations, when the time permits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I am not particularly knowledgeable regarding abstruse political issues, and am not inclined to the research necessary to give an informed comment on them, but @SheriffIsInTown: this is not good and I would appreciate if you did not do it. First of all, you are wrong -- tools like ReFill do need to be used with caution, and it does create more issues than it solves if you use them blindly -- and second of all, even if you are right, it is hard for me to imagine any situation in which having ChatGPT write an insulting rap is an appropriate response to an onwiki problem. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was just for fun and it happened only once. It was not intended to insult. I regret that, it won’t happen again. As for the refill, I already stopped using it for large scale edits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like JPxG, I don't have the time nor inclination to examine in detail all the issues being raised here, but I did happen to look at the discussion between jacobolus and SheriffIsInTown containing the "insulting rap" linked to above, and if that discussion is in any way representative of SheriffIsInTown behavior, then it would suggest that they are not a net positive here. @SheriffIsInTown:'s "just for fun" is a childish and terribly unacceptable justification for insulting behavior, and such a response (itself insulting) is further evidence of your inappropriate behavior. Paul August ☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regret my behavior and no rap of any kind will happen in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate Sheriff for above acceptance. This may be taken as a positive step by Sheriff. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the rap as being a problem. The problem in that thread is that the errors other editors are pointing out were real errors, while Sheriff continuously argued that they weren't errors (up to and including the rap). The mainspace errors were the main problem; the refusal/failure to listen to others' explanations of the errors were the secondary problem; in my view it doesn't matter if WP:IDHT behavior occurs in poetry or prose. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't disregard the issues entirely; some were indeed valid, and I took steps to resolve them. However, it's been over a month since then, and I've ceased relying solely on refill, realizing there are numerous other constructive ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I have definitely learned from that experience. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really didn't resolve them. What you did do was (eventually, after excessive effort on my part) (a) give up on the style of semi-automated edits, hopefully for good, and (b) make at least nominal effort to fix problems with particular edits which were pointed out to you along with explicitly recommended fixes (while several of your fixes were mediocre, I give you points for at least making some effort here). This is certainly better than continuing to cause further damage, but does not entirely solve the problem. You made at least hundreds of other questionable edits which have never been double checked, a substantial proportion of which are likely regressions which should be fixed. (If you or anyone reading along here wants to volunteer to do that, it would be appreciated.) –jacobolus (t) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [37]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [38][39] [40]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [41] [42]
• Removal of edit warring notice [43]
• Removal of ANI notice [44]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [45] [46] [47]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [48]
• Personal attack [49]
• WP:PA against Leventio [50]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [51]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62])
• Erroneous material ([63] [64])
• Readded boosterism ([65]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)^{retracted after seeing new evidence}[reply]

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink, as an editor who cleans up such mistakes, I find this an infuriating take. No, we don't just block someone who makes such errors, but it's not okay for users to create error-filled edits on the assumption "someone else" will come along and clean it up. WP:CIR is a metric for whether someone should be allowed to edit the site, not the bar for whether an individual edit should be accepted. It's perfectly acceptable, even preferable, to revert "productive" additions that introduce a bunch of errors rather than to ignore them and expect other editors to clean them up.

An editor edit-warring to maintain such edits may not be a WP:CIR problem, but it's perfectly reasonable for OP to include edit-warring over them as part of the behavioral issues at play. Grandpallama (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked warnings (ignored ones?) are just someone asking the editor to participate in his own ANI case, not adding links, and not chirping into talk page disputes.

Sorry, but where are the warnings for the editing mistakes, and the instructions for correction? I don't see them in your case, and all I see on their talk page is a generic template warning for edit warring.

How do you feel about a two-way WP:IBAN if you do not want him reverting your edits, and he doesnt want you reverting his? Some edits such as Special:Diff/1206704749 appear to be constructive and good faith to me. (This would require his agreement as well)

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. ^{retracted after seeing new evidence}DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they'd also benefit from not summarily deleting all or most of the messages left at their Talk page and choosing not to engage in this conversation. While it's certainly their right to do so, I think it's fair to say that it's coming across as a disinterest in collaborating with their fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've only encountered Summerdays1 in the last few days at Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. I hadn't until now spotted that this thread was open but having now seen it I'm surprised Summerdays1 hasn't received some sanction for WP:PAs, WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just from that talk page alone the most egregious examples are:

1. Look, you are easily exasperating. Why do I need to give you any reasons? I choose not to for the following: you are difficult and I really don't wish to converse with you on here or anywhere.
2. Because you are ridiculous. I'll say it, you are nuts.
3. They deleted an article talk page reply to them with the edit summary "unwanted expl.".
4. and again with edit summary "asked for another opinion, not yours"
5. "stop talking...You are deluded. I will not answer further."
6. 5 repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post.[66], [67], [68], [69], [70].

DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see all those.

Yeah, definitely deserves a sanction. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing which isn't easily summarised in a diff but which can clearly be seen from reviewing that article talk page is that they don't feel the need to justify their policy-free opinion and being challenged on that results in an extreme WP:BATTLE reaction. Unless they shape up this is not someone who can collaborate here. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think indef blocking them first and asking them to explain how they'll cease being disruptive might set them off. A month (with appeal), for them to contemplate how disruptive they're being might be good though. If that doesn't work, indef them again DarmaniLink (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I support a block here — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I also support a block. GuardianH (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are bad enough. Deleting other editors' posts on talkpages, that aren't theirs? crosses the line. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the evidence presented, I support an indefinite one-way IBAN for whoever has been repeatedly harassed and a one week block for personal attacks, harassment, deleting talk page posts, and battleground behavior to deter future misconduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  seconded DarmaniLink (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: After having a close look at some of Summerdays1's contributions on various articles, I found some striking similarities in edits and behaviour between Summerday1 and an older account, AloofAnteater45. I have filed an SPI report, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45. Thanks — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 are tag-teaming [71] [72] to add an advertisement for an art collective and its magazine to Chavurah, an article about Jewish fellowship. This includes two external links in the body. As an IPv6, I am, of course, automatically assumed to be a vandal and being told that removing spam is not a valid reason for removing spam. Can anything be done? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:E532:22ED:9050:A469 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This assumption is quite obviously a WP:AGF violation. 2003 LN6 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative being just that you are incompetent? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's not an advertisement, it's just a reference to the contemporary usage of the term "Havurah" primarily among religious Jews in NYC. I'm not sure how this source is seen as an advertisement considering it's from an independent Jewish news organization. JewishArtnik (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there are two external links is because there are no wikipedia articles referring to the contemporary use of Havurah yet. I know it's being worked on but until then where should it be linked? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization merits its own article (i.e. it is notable), then it would have one. Until then, every instance of a chavurah does not need to be mentioned in the article. Please see WP:Write the article first. ... discospinster _talk 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on creating its own page as it is quite notable in the Jewish community. I don't, however, understand why the organization would not also be mentioned in the article for the term "Havurah". Other organizations and movements are mentioned in the article, not just the literal translation of the term, so why should this not be referenced as well? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only other organization mentioned by name is Havurat Shalom, and it has got an article. ... discospinster _talk 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The process here would be to create the article for the organization (assuming it meets Wikipedia notability requirements), and then it might make sense to add a "For the art collective, see Havurah (Art collective)" note at the start of the Chavurah article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JewishArtnik (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so things that share a name have separate articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, and doesn't belong here. See dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as bizarre that you could read all the above, and look at the diffs, then come to that conclusion. Unless you did neither and came to that conclusion anyway. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two diffs, both of which show users separately adding content back into the article. The discussion above is an argument about whether that content is promotional or encyclopedic. Nothing in the above speaks to user misconduct. Ironically, the complaint filed here and the assertions of lack of competence and spamming advertisements are user misconduct, in that they are personal attacks that cast aspersions. :A469 and .199 should be warned, this discussion should be closed, and the editors involved should be directed to DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I made two SPIs which go into a lot more detail about this [73] [74], but they were mostly fruitless. Which leads me think this surely must be meat puppetry; one thing is that two similar users emerge around the same time, but several? (even more have emerged since the latest two SPIs) No way.

Jonharojjashi is still continuing these problematic edits. Besides creating two poorly written non-notable articles to get a cheap "Gupta (Indian) victory" (Gupta conquests of Bengal and Extermination of Nagadhatta), they're making a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [75], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Remember the meatpuppetry I mentioned earlier? Well, just coincidentally not long ago one of the users that Jonharojjashi was suspected to be connected to in the SPI, also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [76]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Jonharojjashi is now attempting to retaliate against some of those users who have shown concerns with their edits, including me. They made a poorly made SPI, trying to connect me with random users from completely different backgrounds and interests... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImperialAficionado HistoryofIran (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have even more compelling evidence that there is ongoing meatpuppetry - the evidence certainly explains the bit about the random new users pretty much working together. Don't think I can post it here per WP:OUTING - I'll gladly email it to a interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found more compelling evidence of meatpuppetry by me then please go to SPI as you have done earlier [77][78] and I haven't retaliated to this ANI instead I had already told you that I'm getting links or in other words I'm getting your connections with other users, so it was obvious that I would go for SPI [79] and I have explained there that how some of them are coordinating with you or grouping with each other in order to bite newcomers.

You are again demeaning Gupta conquests of Bengal, please go through the sources before making such allegations. [80] I have explained that how this article is notable. And again please don't pass such judgements here [81] if the draft is still in development. Jonharojjashi (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? Please refrain from suggesting that we are colluding to "target newcomers" by lumping everyone together. I specifically addressed certain accounts that were engaging in edit wars for a specific agenda. Additionally, I pointed out the creation of articles like "Battle of X" and "Siege of X" without proper sourcing, relying solely on invented names. While there's no issue with creating such articles if reliable sources mention them verbatim, here we've observed multiple articles being created with invented names to favor a specific perspective. When concerns are raised about these articles, they are met with coordinated pushback and even the removal of AFD tags [82]. Many newcomers contribute constructively to contentious topics, and their efforts are valued. However, creating articles with less notability and inventing names for battles and sieges are discouraged. It's crucial to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project aimed at expanding knowledge, not for personal agendas or gratification. I recommend submitting your drafts for Articles for Deletion (AFD) review instead of moving them to mainspace unilaterally, especially since multiple concerns have been raised. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look into yourself as you have removed sources before proposing AFD many times [83][84]. I have given substantial evidence for Tag teaming [85] and can you elaborate by what you mean by certain agendas? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave proper reasoning in the edit summary, and it is a good faith edit. Non WP:RS will be removed. And the reason for removing the template from Extermination of Naghadatta is given in its edit summary. Why didn't you participate in those AFD discussion, and now talking about it? And I don't know anything about the "Tag teaming" talking here. The "Agendas" are clearly mentioned by HistoryofIran in your earlier SPIs [86] [87]. I made the earlier comment to make clear that we are not "targetting the newcomers", and I will not be lengthening this thread by baseless arguments. Waiting for the conclusion of the ANI report. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the "Agendas" which were earlier mentioned by historyofIran was proven to be nothing but an unrelated call [88] and three different peoples [89] by the SPI clerks.

As you have previously made personal attacks on me by calling a good faith edit as "vandalism" [90] so I will again warn you to not portray me as a sockpuppetier anymore and do not use words like "agenda" and "vandalism" and "to gain some pride points" (obviously referring to historyofIran) when I wasn't guilty. I don't want to overreact as ANI is still ongoing but honestly this feels like WP:HA and WP:HOUND so this is it, I will just stop replying from now. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, if you have evidence of off-wiki canvassing and/or meatpuppetry, you should send it to ArbCom. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just send an email to ArbCom. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like this user just goes around reverting edits warning people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.141.16 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you are more than well aware, I am busy reverting vandalism to this site. Your whining about me here says a lot about your motivations. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making legal threats when reverting vandalism a change in capitalisation, like you did here. Warning templates are enough, and this was absolutely uncalled for. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad! 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, vandalism has a precise definition (edits deliberately made to disrupt the encyclopedia), and you shouldn't call any edit you disagree with "vandalism" and revert it without giving an explanation. Something like removing outdated tags is not vandalism, it isn't a magic word allowing you to revert anything you don't like.
If someone asks you why you reverted them, replying It was vandalism and you well know it. Cease and desist or you WILL be blocked from editing for a very long time. And a very well deserved block it will be too! is not an acceptable explanation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your replies to User talk:83.168.141.16 and User talk:2601:646:9982:E590:167:B8F1:6FAB:E93 are unacceptable! Please stop with that kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this IP address clearly does not want to cooperate. this edit is the last straw. Also, any admin patrolling, please look at this madness at User talk:2601:646:9982:E590:167:B8F1:6FAB:E93's talk page. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Thats not cool. Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping this @Ad Orientem. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why they are doing this? 67.161.66.16 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who do this have nothing better than to ruin others people lifes. 172.56.51.188 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out, now that they are blocked, that this user has had their behaviour pointed out to them in multiple of their IPs before, including these ones which are currently blocked:

• 223.136.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 223.140.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 111.82.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 111.83.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 66.11.61.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 2804:F14:809C:9001:B8FE:28FF:9611:DEC8 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is long term issue with editor User:Angryskies having an obsession about adding UK to infobox fields incorrectly. Multiple editors have pointed this out to the editor over a number of years and have tried to counsel on their talk page, e.g. in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but in each case editor refused to communicate and just deleted without replying and carried on [91], [92], [93], [94].

Other examples where this has occurred are at BBC, Deloitte, NatWest Group and TSB Bank. Editor was blocked for one month in November 2022 for some of the same reasons, but seemingly has not learnt from this. I did take this is to the edit warring noticeboard, but was declined and deemed that it should be dealt with here. Arebeebank (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, Angryskies did respond in 2020. At this point, I think the 2023 warning is a bit stale, and I recommend attempting to discuss this with Angryskies one more time; if they blank their talk page again or let it sit for a week, then I think coming back here would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Munkhin gal has persistently been removing content from the Kumis page without proper justification apart from personal opinion, as can be seen in its history: [95]. I have issued the user several warnings: [96]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AIV would be better for this, I've already posted there for you. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring board instead of the vandalism board. But Revirvlkodlaku, you are also edit-warring and in that case you need to stop. It doesn't matter that you are returning to the "right version" you are edit-warring and in that case both parties can be penalized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong board. Whoops, I've really only been AIV and ANI I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

62.4.44.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pretty much has just posted PA's against me (and possibly others) over at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut [[97]] [[98]] [[99]] I asked them to stop [[100]] and as I said on their talk page they seem to very much be a SPA that is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to my warning them about this is this [[101]], which is a clear statement they are not going to stop disrupting talk pages with comments like this the first one I link to. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, fwiw, is that you both need to calm down and stop engaging in petty disputes. Ultimately I'll leave it to other more established users to decide what action they think should be taken here. 123.226.224.217 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see unsubstantiated demands and discussing editors behaviors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP and non EC users AFAIK are not allowed to post on TPs in and around that area unless they have something constructive to say. This does not appear to be the case. RUSUKR is a shitshow and this sort of behaviour doesn't help. A "pipe down" temp block should be administered promptly and I don't foresee anyone objecting to that. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they continue to make everything about me [[102]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prety clear. SPA WP:NOTHERE. WP:GSRUSUKR applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per past individual sanctions, the IP should be warned, rather than blocked. I would also support a brief topic ban (one month at most) in RUSUKR as a less restrictive alternative to prevent disruption. In any event, I encourage IP to edit in non-ECP areas and help improve Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues [[103]] Slatersteven (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me just to observe one thing. Its just so happens, that the 3 users who are active on the mentioned Battle of Bakhmut talk page, and happen to be the vast minority who keep pushing this agenda that the battle is not over, is a Ukrainian victory, and other stuff that is clearly not true, also just happen to stumble upon this here, and ask for my ban. Interesting. Unlikely I would call it, but ok.

Both Slaterstever, ManyAreasExpert and Cinderella157, only one of which I have ever directly adressed, all prefer the article to not state the result of the battle, which is clearly infuriating everyone who has any integrity whatsoever.

The RfC results currently has 16 votes, 14 of them want it called a Russian victory. 2 of them don't. Slatersteven and ManyAreasExpert, both of which happen to want me gone. The third one, Cinderella157 added another option to the rfc, which is another way to not say its a russian victory. No one voted it, including them. Guess they don't like losing.

In total, I don't mind getting banned. I probably deserve it, and its not like I edit anything anyway. I never edited a thing on the page either to be clear, nor have I ever intended to. I only left comments in the talk page, because, just like dozens of others, I was stupefied by what these people are doing with their agendas. They are intentionally distorting the truth, through "fair" wiki mechanics, but its outraging everyone who comes across it.

Just becuase they are polite, doesn't mean their intentions are good. They are clearly leaving the article in a state that no one except for them wants (going off of the RfC results, but also common sense).

Again, ban be sure, but wonder why a battle for a town taken in May 2023 took 6 months to get an end date on wikipedia, and why it still has no result of the battle stated? The answer is these 3 users. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that I, too, called for a block for you and I have not edited that article (or any other article pertaining to RUSUKR, for that matter). This is not due to animosity toward you, or because I agree with your "opponents" (I do not believe I have ever interacted with these users at all), but rather because you are breaking the rules in pretty blatant fashion and being disruptive in doing so. You said that [j]ust becuase [sic] they are polite, doesn't mean their intentions are good. We can flip that around and say that just because your intentions are good (or because you're right) doesn't mean you get to be impolite. You can get your point across without breaking the rules, and that you chose to lash out is particularly puzzling since, according to you, there's a current RfC where your preferred position seems to be prevailing. Oh well. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I never disputed me deserving a ban.

Just pointing out, that the emergence of people like myself, along with the behavior, is triggered by Wikipedia giving 'editors' like the couple of them on the Battle of Bakhmut page safe heaven to push political or ideological agendas.

Why did that battle take 6 months to get an end date, even though the end date that is now shown was clear the day it was proclaimed? You could maybe argue about 1-2 days up or down, but all the news, all the media stated that Bakhmut was lost in May 2023. And they, these editors, took all the available tools they had, for it to remain as 'ongoing' for as long as possible. After they exhausted their options with that, they turned to the result, and suddenly, its 'unclear' who the winner is, even though one side clearly took control of the town during the battle. And they are, again, using the same modus operandi, just dragging this process, for reasons known only to them.

And if you look at the talk page, you will see its not just me, its dozens of users who are expressing all kinds of issues with the page being bad. Most of it is instantly closed and archived ofc, by said editors.

You can debate things that are debatable ofc, but when something is so clear, as the result and duration of this battle is, having it lag for what is gonna be probably a whole year, to reflect on Wikipedia, is really just hurting Wikipedia as a whole, FAR more than my, I will not fight you on that, rude outburts on the talk page.

These lengthy processes on Wikipedia (such as an RfC), that a user can just start willy-nilly, clearly have an abuse angle. And RfCs have been abused in that way on that page many times, several times by the same user. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs regarding people inappropriately closing discussions or other talk page chicanery. In any event, as Ostalgia said, being rude and personally attack others is not the best way to win friends and influence people. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Im recall the removed or closed threads were either A, attack pieces (aimed mainly at me) or B, related to then RF, and by users not even allowed to comment there, as the IP is not (and which they continue to do) [[104]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that so many random users are attacking you, isn't it?

But when you spend 6 months delaying an article about a battle having an end date (which it clearly had), and after that you continue to dispute the result of the battle with the exact same means (which you are clearly doing), yeah, some people might start to get annoyed by your actions.

I do not buy for one second, the idea that you thought your stance is gonna get any support in the current RfC. Its an indefensible stance. And other editors called you out on it, days before you initiated it ("Guess, you'll force us to make another RfC to deal with this... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)")[reply]

You took the article about (in terms of life loss at least) the biggest battle since WWII, and decided to make it a stump of an article (which it still is), that shows nothing and says nothing. You pushed your agenda how the battle is not over until you exhausted every possibility you had, and without ever saying sorry for wasting months of the article being in that state because of you, you just went on from the ongoing/over discussion to somehow its not a Russian win, but loss one, with arguments that, I am sure, not even you believe in.

I strongly suggest, if you want to avoid being attacked, is to stop intentionally disrupting important articles on Wikipedia from being complete for months on end. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really have nothing to add to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting this was spotted on User talk:DementiaGaming by me, a TPS and I haven’t interacted with this Wikipedian on this issue or actually ever I believe.

• Talk page discussion started with a title of “A message you may not appreciate” which goes into a paragraph detail of a personal attack. This includes: “I am really happy the Wikipedia community doesn't let the encyclopedia be vandalized and destroyed by malevolent actors such as you. I appreciate that your vandalism was undone by consensus and hope that it serves as a lesson for you to never take destructive decisions for this marvelous project again. If you still feel pulsions to destroy parts of the encyclopedia, I suggest more standard ways like blanking content under an IP address.”
• 33ABGirl replied with a warning to CodemWiki to basically withdraw that entire statement towards DementiaGaming due to it being a blatant personal attack.
• CodemWiki then replied that reporting would be a waste of time, before doing a new edit on their reply doubling down on it.

The personal attack has not been removed/struck yet and the current replies by CodemWiki doubled down on it, even after being asked by an outside-dispute editor (presuming 33ABGirl is not involved in what led to that PA) to strike and withdraw it. As a very-much outside-dispute editor who doesn’t even know what caused this type of talk page comment [Legitimately, I don’t know. I can’t even tell these editors interacted with each other in the last month], I think the administrators should be aware of this prior to an escalation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed at the Talk page. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that a warning is appropriate at this point. CodemWiki should strike their comments and apologize. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range 116.90.110.0/24 is spamming and generally disrupting (see also deleted edits). Based on this, it seems they may be Bestcomics, which would make this block evasion. Any chance of a block of some duration? (I've notified the most recently active user, .117, of this discussion.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to IP, which has made a "unblock request" on the talk page of Bestcomics. I suggest this IP and the range are blocked, and then we should get on an WP:SPI case for the future. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shviki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Мкдвики (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hristijan Kicho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On February 8, 2024 Star Mississippi posted this final warning on a user's talk page. The following is my reasoning for why an administrator should follow up on that warning by applying blocks, as the behavior has continued.

On February 16, the same user has created and continued using another account, which is made plain by applying the duck test to this discussion: User talk:Alalch E.#Thank you.

The user is aware of the latest content to be published on the fairly obscure and blog-like news website ekran.mk, which is operated by two people (see here). They have been reacting to changes in the draft in real time by notifying me that a "latest" or "new" content has been published on said website, that incidentally offers solutions (superficially so) to the sourcing/notability deficiencies identified in the Draft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski. There were two instances of this.

• In the first instance (see the first ekran.mk link on my talk page), after the draft was declined, a "news article" was published containg verbatim copies of a book's blurb and foreweword (предговор), written by the book publisher's editor-in-chief and technical editor. The content that is published is incredibly non-newsworthy to the point where one wonders why would this uninteresting and non-news-resembling content be published at such a random time. The user notifies me of this, describing this off-wiki spam as "a full critical look at Macedonian poets about Trajkovski's poetry". I wrote about this in an AfC comment, and got the following (20:01, 17 February 2024) reply on my talk page. I was informed that I will be given "all the necessary information".
• In the second instance, soon afterwards, following my 21:33, 17 February 2024 edit that removes an unverifiable claim that the writer's story was published in the book Different Worlds, I am informed (08:47, 18 February 2024) that a source that purports that the writer has something to do with the book ("his first book anthology project") has just appeared—on 18 February: https://ekran.mk/aleksandar-sasha-trajkovski-so-nova-kniga-antologija-razlichni-svetovi/ ... clearly in response to my edit.

There is off-wiki-coordinated promotional activity that generates off-wiki spam in response to what is happening with the draft.

There are other accounts in this COI cluster, noteworthily, the draft creator. See this for some background, which connects the draft subject as an autobiographer, the off-wiki spammer, and the draft creator: mk:Special:History/Разговор:Александар Т..

All this is really incredibly banal, and it would be possible to ignore it on the side of conduct and keep managing things on the side of AfC (by simply not accepting the draft), but I believe that the pattern should be recognized and recorded somewhere for the future.—Alalch E. 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got this on my talk page, saying "we have made the necessary changes, we have set with our colleagues a source for each sentence, we plan to set up some more new sources independents" (sic) – I thought by 'sources' they meant referencing in the draft, but based on what @Alalch E. says, perhaps they mean "set[ting] up new sources" in a more literal sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is most definitely what they mean. —Alalch E. 12:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to help other poets and writers have an English version besides their more linguistic. But I see my intention to help, you see it as an intention to help, so I retire, you don't need to waste time on me in discussions unnecessary. Greetings and every good. Мкдвики (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got another perplexing one: [105]. I will give you another source for the critical look at his poetry from other writers, not From Elija and not by Sonja. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Alalch E.. This probably needs an SPI, but as a first step I've blocked Мкдвики as an obvious sock to enforce their threat to retire. Star Mississippi 14:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me Hristijan Kicho is an obvious sock. As is Vladimir.grujeski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another account that has only edited the draft. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I was reported to this noticeboard due to my attempts to patrol new edits and revert vandalism/warn offending users. In doing so, I drew the wrath of someone using a number of IPs from the same range (2601:646::/32) who then proceeded to create an account, both os which they have since been using to taunt, goad and harass me. Some background on this as follows:

2601:646:9982:e590:167:b8f1:6fab:e93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes an unnecessary grammatical change for which they are warned (by me) here.

The next comment on that talk page is from 2601:646:8003:6b20:c1b6:8b6f:ec48:af47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the same range, but is constructed to look like it's come from a different user, who accuses me of having an angry attitude

The next series of edits on that talk page are a hostile exchange between me and yet another IP from that range 2601:646:8003:6b20:249b:3c4b:3c0e:5089 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [106], [107], [108] Also on my talk page, the same IP gets annoyed with me for attempting to revert vandalism [109] before they finally create an account and login as Pankeyk

On reviewing Pankeyk's contributions, it seems clear they have an obsession with me, baiting me [110] and calling me a fraud [111].

Later on, I posted a request for unblock on my talk page which was denied, at which point this user's editing pattern starts to become troublesome....

In this comment, despite the fact that everything that needed to be said had been done so already, Pankeyk was so desperate to taunt me and get the last word in that they posted an extremely patronising message, thinly veiled as "advice". As is my right, I then remove the nonsense added by Pankeyk, first restoring an old revision [112] (I did accidentally remove a comment from the blocking admin, but this would not make sense out of context anyway) and then explaining why I was removing them

At this point, yet another IP from the previous range 2601:646:8003:6b20:a12e:56c0:777d:e05f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already self-confirmed as Pankeyk) jumps in and makes a series of edits:

1. Explains that the messages are "reminders" but also claims they are from a different IP when it is clearly the same person [113]
2. Even worse, this same IP then engages with other users on my talk page to paint me in a bad light [114]
3. More goading [115]
4. Yet more goading [116]
5. Again refers to Pankeyk in the 3rd person when they are clearly the same user [117]
6. Unhealthy interested in the outcome of this case, clear evidence of WP:NOTHERE. [118]
7. Restores the pervious condescending comments I had already explained I wanted removed [119]
8. Follow up comment to the excessive interest in the outcome of this case. [120]
9. Even has the audactity to respond to a comment they made from the same IP as if they are different users! (Someone left the burner on?) [121]
10. And has further audactiy to warn me for removing comments on my own talk page [122] (removed by blocking admin here)

The blocking admin had to step in twice to ask them to desist: [123], [124]

In conclusion, this pattern of behaviour is every bit as bad as actual sockpuppetry, and in my opinion should be dealt with the same way - i.e. the sock account Pankeyk should be indef blocked, and the IP range mentioned above hard blocked for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.28.59.165 (talk)

A lot of what you call "goading" or "trying to paint you in a bad light" is people reminding you that you shouldn't call anything you disagree with "vandalism" and threaten users over it. I'll also add that you have repeatedly been making personal attacks, including in edit summaries here today (saying remove more shite from WANKyk). Given your recent block, I think you should really be more careful with this kind of behavior. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked Pankeyk as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, I suggest also looking at the behavior of the IP who brought the case to ANI, and their habit of making personal attacks and threatening blocks against any editor they disagree with. Whether or not Pankeyk is indeed a sock, some of the personal attacks against them and others were pretty unacceptable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23: I feel like there is more going on here than just Avelina and Pankeyk and the IP being the same person, this ip (2601:64...98:774C), in the /64 range that you just blocked, had previously tried to appeal what seems to have been an autoblock, which unfortunately they did not elaborate on. Although absent of any other evidence I don't want to speculate and cast aspersions.

  -

  The OP, as I have pointed out before* is also someone who has used multiple IPs before and is currently blocked in a few ranges: permalink

  (*I didn't give any diffs then, but their general attitude in talk pages and reverts are all the same type and all happened recently)

  That said, @Bishonen's 10 day block on the OP feels sufficient for now, it's a different IP range anyways.

  – 2804:F14:809C:9001:DDFB:94F6:6529:2AC0 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OP blocked. The start of this conflict by the OP, as described by themselves above, is very strange. Immediately on the expiration of their block for disruption towards other editors, especially for labeling innocuous edits "vandalism" and bothering and threatening the users who made those edits, they pick another fight in exactly the same way, ignoring everything they had been told. The diff they "warned" the IPv6 about was clearly not vandalism - the worst you can say about it is that it was indeed "unnecessary". All the unpleasantness following, as detailed by 180.28.59.165 (most of it from their own battleground attitude), stemmed from this original "warning". 180.28.59.165 obviously learned nothing from their first block, nor from the advice they received during it. I'm trying a block of 10 days to see what that can do. Bishonen | tålk 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Bad close Still ongoing discussion closed only a few hours after the latest comment, with questions still open about the IPs mentioned above. Also uncomfortable about having a user blocked on suspicions of sockpuppetry provided by someone clearly acting in bad faith (and now themselves blocked). This case should have been given a little more time to review the situation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping: TheDragonFire300 ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 03:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby, what do you think still needs to be resolved? It seems like there was some bad behavior all around. Are you critiquing Bishonen's decision to block? It seems justified to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was talking about the decision to block Pankeyk as a sock of Avelina only based on the evidence provided by the blocked IP, although maybe there's some evidence that I missed or misunderstood. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user was socking, most of the IP addresses point to the same location. Are you saying this may not be a sock of Avelina specifically? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the OP never mentioned Avelina at all, so these blocks were clearly based on at least some evidence that Bbb23 observed on his own.

As to if the IP was indeed Pankeyk, that's something that Pankeyk themselves admitted to, at least to one specific IP in the range of these IPv6 IPs: <here> (seemingly talking about <this edit>, not that the Pankeyk account even existed when the edit was made, but whatever)

– 2804:F14:809C:9001:DDFB:94F6:6529:2AC0 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was more about being a sock of Avelina specifically (the IP part is pretty clear-cut as you mention), but you make a good point that there has to be evidence Bbb23 observed separately. Sorry for bothering with this! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after this noticeboard, that led users like @Vanderwaalforces: suggest that @Yotrages: has a WP:CIR issue, Nigerian user Yotrages came back even worse! With these edits (1, 2) by Nigerian IPs, Yotrages Is voluntarily abusing of multiple accounts to restore his content (edit history of the page says it all, @Schazjmd: said that one if the two “seems to clearly be Yotrages”). He also repeatedly continued his pattern of addition of false content with his main account (1, 2). I've been checking his edits for these last weeks, and I can firmly say that to me Yotrages is clearly a Vandalism only account that adds fabricated content on purpose DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless accusations, those 2 IP's ain't mine. Cuz you traced they're from Nigeria doesn't mean I own them!! My IP address is 105.115.1.25 so it's different from them, and I've never used it to edit (you can cross check). The articles are for Nigerian artists, so Nigerian IP's are going to edit it. Per your logic, I can accuse you of using any South African IP's that edit on Wikipedia. The second case @DollysOnMyMind: removed a content that an RFC has been reached for [125], which is bad and can deprive him of editing privilege. The third case is that, he has been adding unnecessary and unreliable content to Chris Brown's article. Using Justin Bieber as a critics, and calling me a troll on his talk page, while reverting me and other editors on the page. Yotrages (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DollysOnMyMind reverting everything you dont like on Wikipedia, is not a good way of editing. That IP has edited Rema's page a day before I saw it. After checking both the opinion on the RFC and his or her trims, I closed the RFC. But [he deleted it to the way he wanted, even though other editors opined it must be trimmed to a paragraph. You really need to change. He accused me of sneakily deleting Schazjmd reply, in which [126] I apologized and told him what happen. Yotrages (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an IP from your same area has restored the same fake content just hours following you doing that identical disruptive edit is not “Baseless accusations” (1, 2). Stop trolling please DollysOnMyMind (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was almost a day speration between those two edits. And are you implying an IP from your State in South Africa, can't edit a South African page 22 hours after yours? cuz that's a rubbish explanation, for accusing me of something outrageous. Also after reverting my edit on TTPD another editor added and qoutes it, cuz it's not wrong, it sticks to the source. Me and @AlHazen [127][128] did the same thing within an hour, in the same article. Does that mean I owned both accounts. Yotrages (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rockchalk717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Travis Kelce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rockchalk717 has engaged in disruptive edit warring on the Travis Kelce article. When a talk page discussion was opened up over whether to add his altercation with Andy Reid during the Super Bowl here, he has since refused to participate after true allegations of WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL. This is not his first ANI, similar issues of ownership have arisen within the past 5 weeks. I propose a topic ban from any article involving the Kansas City Chiefs broadly construed. 2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs showing the edit warring? —Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[129] [130] [131]. To be fair #1 isn’t directly about the issue at hand, but it does show his edit warring attitude.--2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to go off-topic but can I talk you into signing up for an account? Your first message on this thread is the same IP as your last message at that talk, your second message here is from a different IP, and I can't tell which, if any, of other the anonymous editors at that thread are also you. City of Silver 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the IPs should be the same /64 - 2603:3003:4802:5f00::/64. 2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for an IPv6 address, the first 16 characters matching means its from the same connection. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second diff which shows the Reid reference being removed was actually done by a different editor. As for the talk page discussion, WP:CONSENSUS doesnt require unanimity. If you can establish consensus on the wording to add, and if another editor with permissions doesnt add it, you can make an edit request on the talk page, referencing the consensus established. —Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to topic ban Rockchalk717 for disengaging from that thread. This is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. If you want the content included in the article, you can write a draft paragraph and then open an RfC on whether it should be included. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078: Edit warring is reverting the same edit. Those are 3 different edits being reverted. Removing myself from a discussion doesn't violate a policy. It's a little frustrating to be reported to ANI twice by (who I assume) is the same person hiding behind an IP and for some reason refuses to create account and be accused of disruptive editing because they disagree with something I've said. Disagreeing with a proposed addition isn't stonewalling either. Please stop falsely accusing me of stonewalling.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for an editor to create an account, though there are benefits for doing so. —Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockchalk717, just a reminder that per WP:3RR,

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

I have not looked into the details here, but if you think edit warring requires reverting the same edit, you're mistaken. If there are intervening edits, then reverting different edits still counts towards the 3RR limit and therefore may be considered edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reiterating that WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL is an "explanatory essay" and not a policy or guideline of the project.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains, I wasn't edit warring. Only once did I have more than one revert within a 24 hour period on that page, and the 2nd one was right before I began discussing the edit dispute with the editor. The point also remains that I've done nothing wrong. This person hiding behind the IP address appears to have something against me for just disagreeing with them on two separate occasions as this is the second time they've created an inappropriate ANI report about me, both of which where thinking an edit dispute was a violation of policy.--Rockchalk717 07:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point remains; you like to take OWNERship of articles, make accusations, edit war, etc. A topic ban from the chiefs is lenient; I’d personally advocate for a topic ban from all of the NFL.96.231.203.242 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is tantamount to a personal attack. We are not going to topic ban Rockchalk717 from anything. Again, this is a content dispute that you need to resolve via RfC. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockchalk is refusing to discuss, and an RFC cannot be attempted because someone is going to claim WP:RFCBEFORE wasn’t followed. Also, do NOT accuse someone of personal attacks without substantial evidence; that is a personal attack itself. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. You could absolutely start an RfC on the article talk page if you wanted to. Rockchalk's withdrawal from one thread will never be enough to warrant any sanction, let alone a topic ban, in the eyes of any competent observer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Numerous RFCs have failed before due to RFCBEFORE requirement. (2) “any competent observer” that’s a personal attack. (3) This isn’t the first time Rockchalk has engaged in disruptive editing. The previous ANI showed them refusing to add a maintence tag for unsourced material on 2023 Kansas City Chiefs, and most editors agreed that the tag was appropriate at the time. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted at the article talk page to turn the discussion back to content. If you can't be bothered to start an RfC, maybe I will. At any rate, the previous ANI + your scurrilous accusations here are not nearly enough to warrant a sanction; it is time to disengage before a bent stick is sent your direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just close this discussion? It's been made clear to this editor I've done nothing wrong and no disciplinary action is necessary. I even have personally agreed to a brief comment about the incident the editor wants included. The editor just keeps personally attacking me with false accusations of edit warring, stonewalling, ownership of articles, and inappropriate usage of ANI directed towards me. The situation is nothing more than an edit dispute and the editor has taken what I would admit is a little stubbornness on my end the wrong way. I will apologize for the stubbornness but me being stubborn on here at times is not against the rules.--Rockchalk717 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt Kjerag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been imposing POV edits using a website they claim to be a reliable and “official” source self-proclaiming electoral fraud in 2024 Pakistani general election despite multiple warnings by other users over its provenance and partisanship. This led to the election page being protected to prevent them from hammering down their source, whereupon they moved to Electoral fraud in Pakistan to impose their exact same edits again with disregard for concerns raised by editors over the same reasons and even going as far as to place highlights on their citations in a bid to WP:SOAPBOX, claiming it to be not ordinary and even official data from a “reliable”, “well-researched” website that screams ELECTORAL FRAUD at the very beginning and was created for the sole purpose of disseminating such ideas. Furthemore they have sidestepped wiki decorum by demanding all discussions be held in their talk page rather than the page they’re tampering with. As of now they are currently edit-warring despite two warnings on their talk page.

See:

• [[132]]
• [[133]]
• [[134]]
• [[135]]
• [[136]]

For reference, this is the so-called source that they have been parading around as “information”: [[137]], which is a virtual copypaste of this website from one of the affected parties in this election. [[138]].

Request immediate action to deal with this before the credibility of said articles becomes compromised. Borgenland (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that their behavior is persistent and similar as Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therealmaddude (talk · contribs) seems to be WP:NOTHERE: abusive/agressive language towards other editors (1, 2), and all their mainspace edits are basically vandalism ( 3 - biography vandalism, 4 - false information, 5 - BLP false information, 6 - BLP false information, 7 - BLP false information, 8 - BLP false information ...). Warnings & discussions on their talk page have not helped, requesting an admin take a look at the appropriate measures. Thanks, Shazback (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The "kys" comment alone from them is virulent enough. NM 00:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that should even be revdel in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE and for personal attacks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently it came to my attention that User:Doctor Xiao has been promoting a number of papers written by a Congrong Xiao ("肖聪容") in a number of articles on Chinese and English wikipedia (zh:客家文化, zh:羅馬尼亞, National symbols of China, Chinese dragon and so on). Since these references are either from questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact, I removed them as WP:CITESPAM. Soon after there are a group of IPs warring to add back the citespam material. One such IP has stalked over here, Special:Contributions/170.83.216.60. Please monitor these articles in case problems arises. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Special:Contributions/23.158.104.249 on Taiwan Passport. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The papers cited by Mr. Xiao are all from legitimate academic journals, which can be found on Google Scholar, CNKI, or Wanfang, so it is not a problem to use them as reliable sources. I don't understand the importance of so-called "peer review" in Wikipedia - as far as I know, most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews. Should delete all of these? Of course, some of the content you deleted was indeed reviewed by authoritative peers. In fact, the most crucial principle is the "Assume good faith" principle. Are these academic concepts themselves correct in the eyes of most people? Is it against common sense or full of political tendencies? It seems that none of them. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct it, it's "I don't understand the importance of so-called "ittle evidence of peer review or impact" in Wikipedia" 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you mean by deleting my complaint in the Chinese section? Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up? 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks. NM 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Assume good faith, all of us hope that Wikipedia's content will be richer and more authoritative. I have obtained Mr. Xiao's consent for using many of his papers, and he is also happy to contribute to enriching Wikipedia. But your behavior is completely opposite to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is really disappointing. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews.

Academic journals making nuanced historiographical claims should.

Should delete all of these?

Yes. Remsense诉 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to emphasize: it is nowhere near sufficient for a journal to be listed in various index or database services, or whatever you mean by "legitimate". The phrase reliable source has a specific meaning. It does not require (or even care at all) whether the author of a source has a certain preference. Given you know about the assume good faith rule, it should be obvious to you that "Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say. DMacks (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I also cited many scholars' papers to enrich Wikipedia (some were deleted along with Mr. Xiao's viewpoint). All the articles I have cited (including Mr. Xiao) are from official academic journals, and if these are unreliable, there are no reliable sources. Many of the viewpoints of Scholar Xiao's papers are still preserved in Wikipedia, but the authorship of his paper has been removed, which has made Wikipedia's emphasis on sources a joke. Someone deleted my Chinese complaint section and locked it down. This is not the behavior of an authoritative government，then what is it? 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the paper by American scholar Fox is not from a journal, or the part I quoted is not from a journal 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has a point: if you're going to delete references to Xiao's papers, also delete his viewpoints from the article (unless those are based upon other WP:RS). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should retain content that is correct or neutral, and has reliable sources. But some people have clearly done the opposite, deleting a large number of academic viewpoints or sources without considering whether these viewpoints themselves are reasonable, correct, or neutral. This is clearly contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure is Mys_721tx or Remsense Or someone else is trying to ban my IP, I'm just explaining that this kind of "shut up" behavior is happening now. 142.154.108.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are one of the administrators of Wikipedia, so I will not follow your thoughts for the time being (if I understand correctly, you think all content in Wikipedia that has no clear source should be deleted). But I hope you will do so. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you have a misunderstanding of what administrators do on Wikipedia. NM 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user Jollybobwrinkleheadthethird is making various vandalism to various page (particularly City of London School) , the user has been warned but there appears no change in his behaviours . Harvici (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin comment) They have been indefinitely blocked. Please report future vandalism to administrators noticeboard AIV — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta perhaps you meant WP:AIV? That's the place for reporting obvious vandalism. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:DDFB:94F6:6529:2AC0 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol, and this is when my trust for autocomplete in the "add a link" function ends. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue

Hello, I would just like to report one user who has recently taken a very strong stance on my articles. He has been bashfully marking articles written by me as unreviewed, despite the fact that they have been previously verified. He deletes my entries despite the fact that I have added references to them to verified sources. He accuses me of plagiarism, unprofessionalism and using bad sources.

Here is a small outline of the whole situation:

1. it all started with the fact that this user added hundreds of notes to the article ''List of wars and conflicts involving Poland'' under the title ''citation needed'' even to those that already had their own separate article. I reminded him of this and we began to discuss the issue on the ''talk'' page of the article, after a short discussion the user in question was unable to present credible arguments and his only goal in my opinion was to vandalize that page.

[144][145][146][147][148][149]

2. So he began to take revenge on my articles by marking many of them as unreviewed despite the fact that they had been previously reviewed, he began to slander my articles as if they were of poor quality and I should not write any more, he added many notes to my articles that were intended to get rid of them.

[150][151][152][153][154]

3. Although our main dispute was about the article "List of wars involving Poland" which this user vandalized, he claimed that Polish uprisings, invasions, rebellions, raids, civil wars, coups. and many similar entries had no place there because, in his opinion, they did not belong to the ''war'' category, I tried to explain to him that these entries fit there, and that every single article titled ''List of wars'' is structured similarly, although I partially helped him and started adding appropriate references to all entries that did not yet have their own website. Polish medieval chronicles describing specific events in detail, historical books etc. To which the user replied that I was still wrong and started adding a 'verification failed' note to them.

[155][156][157][158]

4. Yesterday, despite my assurances and warnings, this user went all out and deleted half of the entries from a given article, which made me angry and I decided to write to support for help.

[159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184]

When it comes to my articles, I have absolutely no problem with criticizing them because I am not flawless and I can make mistakes, however, when someone vandalizes them in a certain way, I cannot turn a blind eye to it and pretend that nothing is happening over each of the articles. I worked many hours, donated a lot of my free time to create them, and now one user who decided he didn't like them decided to vandalize them, which really upset me. So, coming to the point, is there any chance to minimize the damage that a given user commits to my articles, especially the article ''List of wars involving Poland''? Would it be possible to block this user's access to editing a given article, I work very hard to improve it, every day I add new pages I create to it, and this user destroys all my hard work with just a few clicks... Thanks @SebbeKg SebbeKg (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you didn't leave a notice at TimothyBlue's Talk page, per the red banner at the top of the page. I've done this for you this time, but please do remember in the future. Woodroar (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar, thank you very much, i overlooked it. SebbeKg (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:SebbeKg, I suggest withdrawing this topic and returning to the discussion at Talk:List of wars and conflicts involving Poland before you're hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. You should also avoid words like "slander", which approaches a legal threat (see WP:NLT) and "vandalism", which has a narrow definition on Wikipedia (see WP:VAND). It's clear that TimothyBlue is engaging in good-faith editing and cleanup of List of wars and conflicts involving Poland; this is not vandalism. And after reading through the article, it does need cleanup. I mean, you're citing Jan Długosz, someone who's been dead for more than 500 years, rather than contemporary sources. Two editors have pointed out to you that your sources don't verify the claims being made. This is a very big deal on Wikipedia, as verifiability is one of our core content policies. My advice is to listen to TimothyBlue and Annwfwn, who have much more experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show which select handful diffs clearly indicate the problem you're having with @TimothyBlue. No one is going to review this many examples. Star Mississippi 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Woodroar, yes, you are right, this article has many pages that do not have their own pages, and some of them need cleanup/their own page or appropriate references, although this is what I am currently working on. Yes, of course, Jan Długosz has been dead for 500 years and many chroniclers are not 100% reliable, but I wrote to this user that in the next few days I will be adding references to these entries also to other works, not only Długosz. However, as I wrote, my problem is that the author deletes entries that already have their own pages discussing specific topics in detail. Please see the links I provided in point no. 1 of my comment. What is the reason for quoting or deleting Polish military operations during World War II, Polish uprisings, civil wars that already have their articles? If TimothyBlue wants to clean up this article, let him delete or add notes to entries that do not yet have their own article, and this is mainly the ''Piast Poland'' and ''Feudal Fragmentation'' sections, although there is no need to delete entries that have already been extensively described in separate articles and as shown in the links in no. 4 of my comment, the author deleted all very important for the Polish Wikipedia community, Polish uprisings and almost every conflict in the 20th century... SebbeKg (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I mainly mean adding 'citation needed' notes and deleting articles that already have their own pages. See links from no. 1 and no. 4 of my comment. SebbeKg (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute about the inclusion criteria at List of wars and conflicts involving Poland. Acceptable entries in such lists must either have their own well-referenced articles, or a reference to a reliable source must be provided for the entries. It should be obvious that modern scholarship is vastly preferable to a 500 year old source, because if that old source is useful, it would have been checked and analyzed by modern scholars. SebbeKg, I recommend that you apologize and withdraw this report, which amounts to an extended personal attack on an editor trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your hostility and false accusations of vandalism are particularly disturbing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After all, SebbeKg, writing of Jan Długosz, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said his strong personal bias must certainly be taken into consideration in any critical estimate of that famous work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cullen328 i mentioned that in my previous comment, the reason I used his chronicle was because it was the easiest to navigate, after all I wrote that I would also add other references in the next few days. SebbeKg (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SebbeKg, do not use poor quality 500+ year old sources as references with a promise to add better sources "in a few days". Add high quality sources when you add new content, without exception. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

• I've tried discussing sourcing and list criteria with this editor to no avail.[185], [186], [187]
• List of wars currently with their additions: [188]; version partially cleaned up by me: [189]
• Many of new articles they have created have substantial amounts of unsourced or poorly sourced material: [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199]
• This morning they made an undiscussed move intended to change article scope of List of wars involving Poland: [200]. Someone with needed permissions should undo this undiscussed move.
• I think the ping spam here shows their attitude towards working with others: [201]  // Timothy :: talk  18:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue

  Just stop deleting entries for websites that already have an existing article, this is my biggest problem in our dispute, if you want to clean up this article, remove or add 'citation needed' notes to articles that don't have their own website. The "Piast Poland" and "Feudal Fragmentation" sections require partial cleaning, but there is absolutely no need to remove Polish uprisings or conflicts of the 20th century, which are some of the most important wars in Polish history.

  We can discuss this separately if you want my discord is: sebastian.1100069 just write me there. SebbeKg (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not going to message you in a video game. This suggestion is ridiculous.  // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All discussion of this matter should take place openly and transparently here on Wikipedia, not on some random Discord server, SebbeKg. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Cullen328 well, no problem, I suggested discord only because it is a very convenient platform for writing. SebbeKg (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear @TimothyBlue if you want to clean up this page, please do not delete entries that already exist on Wikipedia, and only do it with those that have neither references nor articles. Many entries that you deleted today are of great importance to Poles and deleting wars such as Polish uprisings, 20th century conflicts or Polish military actions during World War II is simply inappropriate. SebbeKg (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SebbeKg, will you be withdrawing your false accusations of vandalism against TimothyBlue? Please be aware that that editor and others will continue to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you object. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People have already tried to tell you this multiple times, but it is not acceptable to lean on other pages for purposes of verifiability. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. Reliable citations should be provided for every contestable claim in every article, and the WP:burden is on the person adding the claims.

  You do not have a leg to stand on here, you being annoyed at people asking you to cite claims according to site policy is overly possessive, even if you worked hard on the content under scrutiny. you do not have ownership of any articles, and do not get to decide unilaterally why material is fine or not fine. Remsense诉 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SebbeKg is still struggling to understand list criteria and proper sourcing. From today:[202], [203]. Annwfwn (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem continues

• I thought the above and the talk discussion resolved this issue with @SebbeKg: but it has continued. See [204], [205], [206], [207]. This editor clearly does not intend to respect guidelines and policy.  // Timothy :: talk  18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue, why are you removing those entries when i am currently adding references to them??!! SebbeKg (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you ignoring the LISTCRITERIA?  // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue

  This situation is simply abnormal. Yesterday we had a long discussion on this topic, after all, I add references to these entries not from the chronicles of Jan Dlugosz but from books by professional historians. And you, by deleting these entries, are making my job more difficult. SebbeKg (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you ignoring the LISTCRITERIA? You have not improved the article, just made it a larger mess.  // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue

  You can't delete entries with already existing separate articles discussing these wars, you also can't delete entries that have a reference, after all I started today to add references to history books that have nothing to do with Dlugosz, so why are you deleting them? SebbeKg (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue

  Btw. lets discuss it in the talk page of the article and not here. SebbeKg (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the appropriate place. And you still have not replied to @Cullen328: above.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi SebbeKg, you absolutely can delete already existing articles that do not meet the list criteria. For example, you added Naval battle near Hel to List of wars involving Poland. This is not a war, thus it does not meet the list criteria. Plus you did not add a source. [208]. Annwfwn (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• 2601:240:CD00:0:0:0:0:0/46 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

MakaveliReed has been active recently on a number of /64 ranges in the Chicago area. He got blocked yesterday at Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:F7A4:0:0:0:0/64, but was active before that and after that on other /64 ranges. Today he re-appeared on Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:22E6:B455:12A9:7A68:25CC.

I would like to propose a rangeblock on the /46 which covers the last month of activity. Larger ranges have more collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week: expanded current block to the /46 range. El_C 06:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Michele Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Michele Evans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans
• PenmanWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Micheleevansny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.117.93.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Quick timeline of 9 January, which is quite revealing.

• 14:44 (diff to a user talk page post confirming the action, since I can't link to a deleted diff), the IP amends the redirect for Michele Evans to a newly created article about a totally different Michele Evans.
• 14:51 IP adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 14:54 IP adds another Michele Evans link
• 14:57 Micheleevansny adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 15:43 Micheleevansny amends a pre-existing Michele Evans link to retarget to the previous redirect target (Lockheed Martin)
• 15:43 Micheleevansny does the the same again.

Now I'm hoping there's not much doubt in anyone's mind that Micheleevansny, with their rather revealing choice of username, must have some connection with the IP that was making Michele Evans related edits just minutes before, and that the use of the IP was an attempt to avoid accusations of potential conflict of interest.

The creation of the article on Michele Evans resulted in a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Michele Evans, followed by the "Articles for deletion" discussion linked to above. During the latter, the IP bludgeoned the discssion for days on end, not even a 60 hour block stopped then coming back and wasting more time with even more bludgeoning. The PenmanWarrior account was created on 14 January and is either the same person or someone associated with them, based on the exceptionally narrow editing interest.

The deletion of the Michele Evans article should have put a stop to the promotion, save for some grunbling from the IP that seemed to be the case. However PenmanWarrior created a draft which is pretty identical except for the addition of a more recent news article that mentions Evans a couple of times, and wouldn't override the result of the Afd discussion as far as I can tell. They are also making spurious requests for undeletion, more of the same here, and more complaining here.

We've had the discussion about Michele Evans and the consensus was clear. There's no reason why PenmanWarrior should be permitted to waste any more of the community's time on this, and I propose they are topic banned from anything to do with Michele Evans. Obviously my proposed topic ban would cover the IP and the Micheleevansny account, since they are either the same person or acting in concert with them. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love the way facts are glossed over and new developments are ignored! This shows a lack of good faith! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean. It's eligible for speedy deletion for goodness's sake! ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't; the Article was deleted, so the Draft is not eligible for WP:G4 (that's the whole point of the Draft space). Primefac (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind that... ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. Uninvolved reviewer here, also my first time on a ANI! I gave the editor some good advice on the AfC Helpdesk but was met with a fairly belligerent tone and I am seeing hints of bludgeoning again. They're providing poor sources. There must be an undisclosed COI here. Qcne (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support block/ban of IP and/or PenmanWarrior. LOUTSOCK, new-account to evade scrutiny, or any other shade of puppetry is a problem itself. And given the disruptive edits and refusal to listen, I'm seeing a time-syncsink with no net gain for the project. On the fence about which buttons get pushed where. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that everyone's clock is in agreement, we can discuss how much time is wasted. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked PenmanWarrior 31h for disruption, including IDHT (including some via forum-shopping). Even if later raised in a more appropriate location, the fact is they raising the same points that have been repeatedly responded-to, roundly opposed, and/or are not accepting our policies, guidelines, and processes. And now even disrupting the review of their own draft. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block and support longer if the disruption returns when they are unblocked. They're welcome to try and improve the draft, they're not welcome to wear everyone out in search of the answer they want. Star Mississippi 01:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a legal threat from the user directed at @Kathleen's bike. Qcne (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is particularly a legal threat but rather an "I'm gonna get you blocked grr" threat or something similar. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban - Obvious close association with subject. Evidence includes citing a primary source immediately after it appeared online, and citing a source on the strength of hidden text within the HTML. The fact that PenmanWarrior denies a conflict of interest, and refuses to take on-board anything anyone else says does not suggest they are willing to contribute in good faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since everyone's in agreement, should this ban be enforced? ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Less than 24 hours have passed since this thread was started, and the user is currently blocked for another 18 hours anyway. Are you in some sort of rush? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. I just realized that they were already blocked just now. ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Peter Isotalo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vasa (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see any need for technical action, but if someone could talk this editor down a bit and convince them to strike their incivility it would be helpful. I think there's a bit of ownership going on at Vasa (ship) after their hard work getting it to FA, but it's becoming toxic.

[209], [210], [211], [212], [213].

Notified: [214]. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding the incivility in those diffs? I see a WP:CITEVAR dispute that's getting a little heated. It appears there's a content dispute over WP:CITEVAR and the extent to which that policy and WP:FAOWN should put the onus on others to produce a positive consensus for a change. Looks like an RfC will be necessary for such a change without significant additional participation. Regardless, I see allegations of subpar behavior from multiple parties and nothing particularly egregious from anyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, these[215][216][217] and especially these[218][219][220] were quite disconcerting. Peter ^Isotalo 00:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in either set of links that actually violates policy but it's pretty clear that unless something changes, you aren't going to be able to collegially edit alongside each other. Per Rhododendrites, an RfC might do the trick so @VQuakr and Peter Isotalo: are either of you willing to start it? City of Silver 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver: Yes, I had suggested a RfC earlier. I'll likely defer to the individual proposing the changes on its actual writing but there seems to be broad agreement that this is a molehill not a mountain and that a RfC is a good path forward. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr's interaction with myself or Vasa (ship) have been limited to the last 24 hours and have in my view not helped in any way, only worsened the dispute.

The larger issue here is a single other user interacting with a few maritime history articles I've worked on a lot, including galley and more lately Vasa (ship). Their approach is very much hit-and-miss because they lack experience with the topics and their surrounding literature, but approach the topic with the vigor of an inquisitor. For example, there was just recently a very unproductive debate about the English translation of a word in Swedish despite the user not knowing a word of Swedish. There's plenty of other friction caused by the user not being able to fully differentiate between neutral synthesis of sources and their own opinions.

The whole process is just exhausting because it feels like I can't do anything right. VQuakr's behavior has dispirited me greatly because I feel they are ignoring and belittling me. If I make arguments, they're dismissed as subjective. If I provide links to specific threads, I have to specify diffs. When I post diffs, they're all irrelevant.

I've completely lost all joy in editing at the moment and feel embattled and exhausted. Peter ^Isotalo 06:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a spurious report, because from what I can see, the filer is no less uncivil than the person whom they are reporting (in both cases of the mild variety). Both disputants should seek assistance with the content dispute, like a Third opinion, rather than argue about WP:OWNERSHIP versus WP:STEWARDSHIP (ship!), and so on. HTH. El_C 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a side topic but there's no difference between {{sfn|Doe|1999|p=11}}and <ref name="Doe-1999-p11">{{harvnb|Doe|1999|p=11}}.</ref>. The {{sfn}} template is easier to type and the {{harvnb}} template is more versatile and works with the VisualEditor. The issues raised on the talk page about this are likely based on a misconception. Both of those templates use the same module and work in similar ways, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this dispute from the 3O board, admittedly, it was the first third opinion I tried to do, so I may not have given it well enough. I tried to gently say that I agreed with peter, but that if he wants change, he should open an RfC. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarmaniLink: I thought it was a pretty good 3O response. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping WP:FAOWN in mind, this whole thing seems nonetheless kind of unnecessary and sad for everybody involved. The issue seems extremely minor. The complainant and complainee both, based on their talk pages, seem to be quite skilled professionals (as well as grown adults who've both spent more than ten years on Wikipedia) -- surely there is enough brain power in the room that this can be resolved amicably? We can open an RfC if it's that big of a deal, but I think ANI is unnecessary here. jp×g🗯️ 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for urgent intervention on the multiple addresses (suspected sockpuppets of the same editor) making unexplained edits on Seberang Perai without WP:ES and potential edit warring behaviour by said addresses in spite of warnings.
114.142.173.45 ([221])
116.206.15.31 ([222])
116.206.14.18 ([223])
116.206.15.31 ([224])

hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a beginner on Wikipedia using the internet in my office, I tried to edit and develop the article on the neolithic history of Seberang Perai, also changing a picture in the infobox because there are similarities between the city skyline and central terminal with a image. But a User:HundenvonPenang always disrupts my edits with his assumptions, even though I only want to develop this section. Can the admin here warn him? because almost 90% that article dominant by him, judging from this history. Thank You 116.206.14.19 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another IP address, a sockpuppet of the above mentioned issue. No explanation at all from said IP addresses. Edit-warring & treating WP as a battlefield. Just another classic case of assuming bad faith. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To hundenvonPG, protection has been added to limit registered users has been placed for the next 12 months. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To User 116.206.14.19; I suggest that you register as a Wikipedia user. After you register, you may consider creating an article about prehistoric discoveries in Seberang Perai, in that it appears that you have substantial sourcing, and then create a link to that article.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To both users, if correct, the additional information relating to discoveries in Seberang Perai does not appear at first glance to be irrelevant, and reverting edits, if substantiated and relevant, is not encouraged.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor User:Larabdodoo only seems to work on the Larisa Akrofie article. As well as adding unsourced content and external links, linking social media, the editor has now put a link to whatsapp. Can you believe. Seems to think its a blog. I've warned the editor until I'm blue in the face and there has been no change and no communications. I must have cleaned that article about 4 times now over the last couple of years. I suggest a indef block. Time waster. scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this report was long overdue; DaRealConMan has a lengthy history of adding poorly sourced content (if sourced at all) and original research to numerous articles, primarily those related to public transit in Southern California. Aside from instances of just plain-old adding unsourced content and OR, more egregious examples of their disruption include restoring a bus roster without addressing concerns regarding sourcing and original research, removing valid maintenance banners without explanation (twice), and using self-produced images as sources. They've been warned plenty of times regarding this (see their talk page) over the past few years but seem to ignore them, so tacking more of them on their talk page seems to be out of the picture moving forward. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salfanto (talk · contribs · logs) has had a persistent issue with adding unsourced content (and OR that is not adequately supported by the cited sources), [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] and has been warned for this behaviour numerous times. When warned in the past, as visible on their talk page, their response typically involves saying "ok sorry" in response to these issues, and then essentially ignoring them completely and not actually changing their behaviour in any way at all. This most recent diff [233] leads me to believe that this is a CIR case, if not outright disruption - deliberately lying in their edit summary, in which they say they "added sources" but only added more unsourced content, which is not something I can find any way to construe as the actions of a good-faith contributor. Loafiewa (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1002:B032:CF57:0:13:274D:4A01 (talk · contribs · logs) inserting unrelated video games sections in various film studio articles. Continued beyond final warning. Barry Wom (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be in WP:AIV? Flux55 (my talk page) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flux55: please do appropriate research before commenting here. A cursory check of Barry Wom's contributions would have found the edit prior to reporting to ANI, they did report to AIV, where they were told to report at ANI. Daniel (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Flux55 (my talk page) 18:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]