Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing

    [edit]

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

    The user had been involved in an Edit War at 15.ai, when I proposed a TBAN for RocketKnightX in response to their persistent disruptive editing of 15.ai, I dropped the complaint when they said they would stop [1]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [2] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [3]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[4]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [5] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[6] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing the AfD template is pretty disruptive, as the template has clear in-your-face text that says "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Talking nonsense about vandalism in the edit summary when reverting a well-explained edit here is not good either. Doing these things after promising to stop "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Part of me wouldn't be surprised if RocketKnightX is involved in the sock/SPA disruption at the afd, or even a User:HackerKnownAs sock. WHile it wouldn't surprise me if true I don't suspect enough to take to SPI, afterall the evidence would be behavioural and there are some differences in behaviour. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think they're a HKA Sock given the wildly different behaviors, but RK was suspected of being someone else's Sock in an ANI discussion that produced no results [7] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tacotron2 attempted WP:VOTESTACK

    [edit]

    Tacotron2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am just creating this complaint as a sub-section because it is directly related to RocketKnightX's activity. After having a discussion where they were made aware that The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.[8], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[9] and others[10][11] to the AfD I left a warning [12] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [13][14][15]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I can probably believe that you didn't see my warning. What I do not believe is that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when an admin already told that people who solicit (i.e the people asking others to the vote) inappropriately may be subject to administrative review. After that message you:
    • Canvassed a known disruptive edit warrior [16]
    • Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[17]
    • Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [18]
    • Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [19]
    • Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [20]
    • Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [21]
    Notably, you didn't provide a notice to any editor who was involved in editing 15.ai who might reasonably be expected to vote delete, nor did you canvass anyone who voted delete in the last AfD. Why you felt it necessary to specifically invite Elmidae when you pinged them in your response to the AfD I also do not know or understand. Notably, you did not invite the following editors who were active recently at 15.ai Polygnotus, Thought 1915, YesI'mOnFire, Sj, Cooldudeseven7, The Hand That Feeds You, or the editors who voted Delete last time such as LilianaUwU, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum, and Cinadon36.
    This is pretty clear WP:VOTESTACKING. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Rsjaffe#AfD Issues), you were worried about being labeled as canvassed and I made the distinction that we are generally looking at the canvasser, not the canvassed. This was in a discussion about what sort of behavior merits reporting to ANI. And after all that, you claim ignorance of the issue? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that. Tacotron2 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, read WP:CAN, and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand. I will follow the behavioral guidelines. Sorry again. Tacotron2 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Summary

    [edit]

    This, like many cases here at WP:ANI, is a conduct dispute that began as a content dispute. The content dispute was at 15.ai, and was over what the infobox should say was the status of the web site. Some editors said that the web site was under maintenance (and temporarily down for maintenance) and should say that. Other editors said that the web site was abandoned and should say that.

    A request was made, on 5 October 2024, for moderated discussion at DRN by an editor who was then indefinitely blocked for unrelated conduct. However, other editors took part, including User:BrocadeRiverPoems and User:RocketKnightX. The DRN is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. I then started an RFC on the status of the web site, at Talk:15.ai. That was meant to resolve the content dispute.

    User:HackerKnownAs then filed a complaint at WP:ANI against User:BrocadeRiverPoems on 16 November 2024, that is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#BrocadeRiverPoems_behavioral_issues. That complaint and the reply were both Too Long to Read. User:HackerKnownAs and some other editors were then blocked for sockpuppetry.

    User:RocketKnightX continued to edit-war, and User:BrocadeRiverPoems proposed a topic-ban against RocketKnightX from the page 15.ai. RocketKnightX said that they would stop edit-warring. At about this point, that ANI was closed.

    User:BrocadeRiverPoems then nominated the article 15.ai for deletion on 2 December 2024. I have not (as of the time of this post) done a source analysis on the article, and so do not have an opinion on the AFD at this time.

    User:BrocadeRiverPoems closed the RFC as an involved snow close on 4 December 2024 to omit the status of the web site from the infobox, because there are no reliable sources stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

    Proposal 1: Site Ban for User:RocketKnightX

    [edit]
    Not passed. The lack of input indicates this isn't a concern rising to the level of a need for a ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think that the conduct of User:RocketKnightX is a strong net negative for the community. They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring. They removed the AFD banner, which is very clearly forbidden, while accusing User:BrocadeRiverPoems of vandalism. I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be banned by the community.

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline WP:NATIONALIST editing[22][23],[24] where they continue act disruptively within the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan and a number of other problems that indicate WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues[25] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [26] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [27][28]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did above, where I gave them a 31-hour block (currently an active block) for them. The only difference is that Robert assumes bad faith of RocketKnightX's undertaking to stop edit warring ("They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring"). We're not supposed to do that, and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop on 18 November and only went back to disruptive actions at 15.ai (not actually to edit warring, but to the aforementioned removal of the AfD banner and accusation of vandalism) again on 7 December, three weeks later. The agreement to stop in November doesn't look to me like part of a heinous plan to continue disrupting; it seems at least as likely that they had simply forgotten about it three weeks later. It was six words that look angrily dashed-off; not some elaborate undertaking. The whole notion that RKX has already "exhausted the patience of the community" seems weirdly excessive. I stand by my 31-hour block as the more appropriate sanction. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
      I do feel that WP:CIR is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor regardless of edit warring, specifically the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. In October they asked me what they should do in cases of disputes. When I told them what they should do, about dispute resolution, etc. they responded Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.[29]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on talkpages [30] and I'm not really sure what the community is expected to do when the user has self-proclaimed that learning dispute resolution is too hard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're bringing up edit summaries from months ago, this article has been the subject of way too many project discussions already and I think that comments made in October have already been dealt with when those discussions were closed. If there have been recent issues, you can share those edits but don't dig up the past. I'm with Bishonen here. Yes, this is not an enormously productive editor but this seems like overkill. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must confess, I am a tad confused as to how one demonstrates chronic, intractable behavioral problems problems without bringing up the past behavior considering as they once again did the same behavior while also removing the AfD notice from the article. [31]. Oh well. It would seem I have a completely incorrect understanding of what this whole "chronic behavioral problem" business is. Mea culpa. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BrocadeRiverPoems, it seems like you rely too much on coming to ANI, AN and SPI when you encounter an editor you disagree with who might have had moments of disruption. Don't seek to get every adversarial editor blocked from discussions or the site. Learn how to talk out problems instead of coming to noticeboards, seeking topic bans and site blocks. It's like using a hammer to get a fly to move. Learn proportionally. ANI is for serious behavioral problems, not just for editors you might find annoying. An overreliance on ANI starts to reflect poorly on you and whether you have the ability to amicably resolve disputes instead of trying to eliminate contrary editors. That's my honest opinion. At times, you can seem a little relentless. Learn to collaborate with those whom you disagree or, if that fails, keep some distance between you. That's what most of us longtimers do. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two clear NOTHERE accounts

    [edit]
    User pages deleted and/or blanked, and users warned. GiantSnowman 17:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TheodoresTomfooleries and DFLPApologist are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Not sure where else to report so I brought it here. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My contributions very much suggest otherwise. Whether you like my userpage or not has nothing to do with my contributions to Wikipedia, all of which have been done to improve Wikipedia. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My userpage has no relation to my contributions. DFLPApologist (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DFLPApologist, this is not Twitter or social media of any kind. You wrote Unlimited genocide on the first world on the other editor's talk page. Why should other Wikipedia editors believe anything that you say? Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just revdelled about a dozen revisions on their userpage under RD2. I don't think the user was being remotely serious about what they said, but it's still gross and unnecessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PMC has apparently revdelled multiple revisions upon my request but the content was extremely inappropriate and gross - I don't think any sane person would interpret it as humour The AP (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But some places are saner than others. The last best place on the internet, as people say. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support an indef, the majority of their edits here have been to just add offensive material to their userpage which is now at MfD. EF5 14:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - By the way, a strict reading of the guidelines is that the user pages should not have been blanked. The banner on a page that is nominated for MFD says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. . So I think that this was an application of Ignore All Rules. In any case, I don't think that blanking is an acceptable Alternative to Deletion in these cases. The material should be removed from the history. If they weren't already at MFD, redaction as RD3 would be an alternative, but they are already at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can this thread be closed with a warning to the two editors, allowing the MFDs to run to normal consensus closure? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 = block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I am reporting the IP user above, for continued disruption of Jim Henson Pictures related topics and block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16.

    Let's compare some edits from the 166.182.249.211 address (part of that blocked /16 range) as an example:

    The block evasion is incredibly obvious in my opinion when comparing those two diffs on each page. Passes the WP:DUCK test.

    Keep in mind this IP user was already previously reported to WP:AIV a while ago by User:FilmandTVFan28 (diff), but that report has sat there unnoticed for nearly 7 hours now and it looks like it's going to get automatically removed as stale. Yet, since that AIV report this /64 IPv6 range has done yet another wave of disruption, so due to the lack of attention at AIV and the continued disruption I am proceeding this to AN/I here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Flusapochterasumesch reported by User:Bowler the Carmine

    [edit]
    Indef pblock from articlespace and talkspace applied until understanding of Wikipedia norms improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Flusapochterasumesch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being disruptive in Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson. They are generally hostile towards other editors ([32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]), do not seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary source ([39] [40]) and a collaborative project ([41] [42]), and has expressed their intention to remain willfully ignorant of policies and guidelines ([43] [44] [45]); despite my general note ([46]) and personal warning ([47]) to stop, and several editors' attempts ([48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]) to redirect them away from disruptive behavior. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I first noticed Flusapochterasumesch on Talk:Justin Welby, in which the user proposed several unhelpful edits, including describing a living person as a bastard son (diff) and a fairly pointless edit based on a pedantic reading of the word "coincided" (diff). When I replied that this edit would not make sense, responded with "I see you replied to me just after three-thirty today. Coincidentally, I was moving my bowels at precisely that time" and added a personal insult with "stop wasting my time you pompous dolt." (diff). I have not had other interactions with this editor but based on my own observations and the interactions reported above, I am not sure the user is WP:HERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Flusapochterasumesch's posts on Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson are necessarily ruder than those of other people. But their comment on their own page in response to Bowler the Carmine's warning shows that they are somewhat wilfully misusing that talkpage, stating "I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY" and "My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES". They are new (ish), and may not be aware that the only purpose of talkpages is precisely "proposing, or advocating for, edits, changes or inclusions to the article". I have tried to explain this on their page, and hope they'll agree to start using the talkpage for its intended purpose, and to take any discussion of policies to the talkpages of those policies.PS, I wrote this up before seeing Dclemens1971's comment above. That conduct may indeed require a sanction (though it was a month ago, so maybe not now). Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I spent a little time going through Flusapochterasumesch's contributions and found several more personal insults:
    • irritating and abject moron (diff)
    • I think you take your wise-cracking to a forced level of expressing superiority, which in turn comes across as someone with an inferiority complex who is bitter at many things and people. (diff)
    • Telling another editor their username goes before you like flatulence from a retroperambulating bovine (diff)
    • In response to a normal disruptive editing warning, said it might help you to step away from your belligerent irrationality for a pair of days in order for your ultimately cowed response to be semi-cogent, semi-logical, sensible and without passionate anger, overt aggression, disgusting sectarianism, horrific racism, clatty sexual discrimination or stupidly-irrational hatred. (diff)
    Flusa has been warned on multiple other occasions (diff, diff). In removing one of the warnings from their talk page, they called it "possible vandalism" (diff). The personal attacks continue (the most recent diffs above are from this month). Despite dishing out insults, however, Flusa is quick to take offense (diff) at being told to "relax."
    Finally, Flusa wrote: if I ever entertained any thoughts of investing any meaningful energy in this project I'd dispatch myself haste post haste... Not only is the hypothetical reference to self-harm in extraordinary poor taste, it reinforces the idea that Flusa is WP:NOTHERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just point out that my interaction with Flusa right below this complaint had no prior backing and got me super confused on why they needed to disassemble a simple good faith message providing a small amount of context. It feels like this user is here mostly for a WP:FORUM, not necessarily the contribution of an encyclopedia. Conyo14 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Permanent link to interaction below for posterity. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely the first time I've seen someone read dark motives about use of the word "even." And offended as such on the behalf of a third party in a dispute that didn't involve them! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some further criticism of Flusapochterasumesch on their talk page, which they removed: see [56]. It refers to an earlier interaction in which I had suggested that it was not appropriate to refer to a good-faith editor as "a blatant child abuse apologist". So, there is quite a history of impolite behaviour at multiple sites. Flusapochterasumesch could really be an asset but absolutely there needs to be a change of attitude towards other editors and towards following our rules. There have been repeated warnings: does anybody sense any change in behaviour in response? JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one reason Flusa keeps getting warnings without escalation (until now) is that they regularly blank their talk page, so other editors giving warnings (myself included) may not have seen the history and realized the behavior warrants escalation. Considering the insults have continued up through four days ago, I think we're well past where warnings are appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a list of all their talk page blankings:
    That's 8 warnings/messages warnings/warning-adjacent messages they've received so far. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC); edited 18:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They also have several posts here on ANI that appear to have been removed by admins on Dec 11, which is concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it was just a REVDEL situation and not explicitly their comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've traced it the revdel's back. They're unrelated to this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I advised them a month ago, [57], that their strong personal views on current news subjects were compromising their editing. That message was also blanked. It is pretty clear from their editing that their aim here is not to build an encyclopaedia, but to argue about current news items on which they hold strong views. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    [edit]

    Given the extensive discussion above, their lack of participation here, but seeming ability to participate in the discussion below, it feels like they're just actively avoiding this discussion and trying to run out the clock.

    I propose an indef block until:

    1. They are willing to discuss their behavior in a re-opened AN/I discussion (which could result in no sanctions, or the same or different sanctions); or
    2. They are willing to acknowledge that their conduct has not been appropriate and they agree to abide by community norms/rules.
    —Locke Cole • t • c 18:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As reporter, I agree. They have had more than enough time to respond to this discussion, and in light of them avoiding this discussion while weighing in on other discussions here, their frequent talk page blanking now seems like an attempt to evade accountability. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, although it should be "and" because both actions are important. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I figure the "or" so we can give them some WP:ROPE if they decide to say they understand and will comply, but then go right back to doing the thing that prompted this discussion. But I'm open to an "and" as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block: In their relatively brief time on the site, Flusapochterasumesch has racked up an impressive number of disruptive incidents. They seem unable to collaborate without blustering, insult and condescension. This is a good example, and there are lots more. We deserve better treatment than this. Toughpigs (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support block: Toughpigs puts it well. The behaviour seems ingrained and unresponsive to multiple instances of patient advice. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef Flusa at least gives the impression that they treat every disagreement as an opportunity to bludgeon their opponent. As for the ANI flu they're suffering, I'm not sure it has any bearing here; I can't think of any reasonable explanation they could provide for treating Wikipedia as an adversarial platform rather than a collaborative one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support conditional indef on the condition that they agree to participate in an ANI case. The result of the discussion could very easily end in an indef, but until they're willing to discuss their behavior, we can't be assured they wont continue to be disruptive and a net negative. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support unconditional indef Flusa’s comments are frankly beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:31.222.81.248 = LTA BKFIP sockpuppet detected

    [edit]
    Dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I am reporting the IP address above, as I highly suspect it is yet another sockpuppet of WP:LTA/BKFIP once again.

    I just got off my gaming session today and refreshed my Wikipedia to find two revert notifications, both from the 31.222.81.248 IP address, and when I looked closer as to what edits of mine they were undoing, they were reverting my reverts of edits made by a previous BKFIP sock, 89.207.175.7, which were made on 30 June 2024 (and that IP was also blocked for block evasion that day).

    Let's compare some diffs:

    • On Wycombe (UK Parliament constituency): diff by new IP is an exact repeat of diff by old IP
    • On Ashford International railway station: diff by new IP is an exact repeat of diff by old IP

    As if that wasn't telling enough, check this out. BKFIP is known to absolutely loathe warning templates left on their user talk page.

    To my eyes, this passes the WP:DUCK test when looking at those diffs above. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've already IP hopped to 31.222.81.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Manticore 10:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 31.222.81.153 for 3 months, and 31.222.81.248 for two weeks. — The Anome (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Anome: Thanks a lot!
    But I don't think we are done yet, as I found one more sock - an account, after looking at the page history of Self-referential humor through the 31.222.81.153 IP that User:Manticore talked about:
    Actinic (talk · contribs)
    Compare diff by account to diff by that blocked IP.
    The edit summary of this edit reads: removed irrelevant crap added repeatedly by editor obsessed with the idea that only people trying to get their cats high read this article. That 'passive-aggressive' tone sounds familiar to me after having seen it many times from previous socks. Similar thing going on this talk page post too. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AP 499D25, @Manticore, and @The Anome, thanks for taking care of this! I really appreciate it. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Copyeditor changing direct quotations

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    86.42.148.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is copy-editing articles relating to Ireland at a rate of knots. Their edits include changes to direct quotations. They do not respond to messages on their talk page. I have to go out in a minute but could people please cast an eye over their edits? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ahmad Shazlan persistently adding preferred content despite objections and multiple entreaties to discuss on talk page.

    [edit]
    Duplicated by later post. Closing this one. asilvering (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I have gone back and forth on this issue with User:Ahmad Shazlan, and they insist on restoring their preferred version of the page contents, without making any real effort to discuss the matter, despite the fact that I've encouraged them to do so multiple times, both in my edit summaries as well as on their talk page. In fact, as you can see here, they have already received a warning regarding this matter from another editor, but to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sourced info being changed disruptively

    [edit]
    How about we don't bite the newbies. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Matthias Becer is being disruptive at Bağpınar, Şırnak by changing sourced information to their liking. I've now reverted their changes more than once and warned them twice on their talkpage to no prevail. They write that "I made the changes, cause that is my village, i was born there and the information was too rudimentary and not right." but ultimately the info was referenced well by more than one source. It is clear IJDLI and OR violations. Semsûrî (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semsûrî, this editor's account was created a day ago and they have made a total of 5 edits. It seems like quite an escalation to bring them to ANI. They replied to one of your messages on their user talk page, could you continue the discussion there and try to explain Wikipedia policy to them? Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting Block on IP User talk:2409:40F4:34:2E50:C475:D1FF:FE1B:4B8A

    [edit]
    IP had already stopped editing by the time this was filed. In the future, WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP is hopping around onto different Indian film articles and changing boxoffice figures and adding unreliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. After warning, IP continued with the same. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ahmad Shazlan

    [edit]

    This is the second time I post this here within the span of two days: User:Ahmad Shazlan has repeatedly insisted on inserting preferred content on the Roti canai page, despite opposition from a number of users, myself included. I've several times encouraged them to start a discussion on the topic instead of edit warring, and I've even left a note on their talk page, all of which they've ignored. They've already received a warning, yet this hasn't stopped them from continuing to impose their preferred edits on the page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Revirvlkodlaku, I am not an admin, but I believe you need to provide diffs of the user's rule-breaking behavior supporting your statements, as mentioned at the top of the page, in order to get any kind of response here; merely linking your warning(s) is not enough. NewBorders (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Revirvlkodlaku, they tried to engage on the article talk page and have been ignored. Please try to communicate on the talk page before bringing people to ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @asilvering, I don't see the user as trying to engage in a meaningful way. They've dropped a few random comments on the talk while also edit warring on the page, completely disregarding my entreaties that they seek a consensus instead. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth are they supposed to achieve the consensus you're telling them to seek if no one is responding to them on the talk page? -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Budisgood and competence

    [edit]
    Budisgood has been blocked from Article and File space which addresses some concerns. If editors believe there is more than needs to be resolved here, feel free to reopen this discussion. I don't find the complaint against The Banner has any basis and, if anything, it seems like Budisgood has a fixation on The Banner by copying their signature and User page. This is also not a valid form of copying which I hope is not habitual. Liz Read! Talk! 09:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In my opinion, user:Budisgood is an utterly incompetent editor, bordering on plain vandalism. Every advice and warning is ignored (here, here, here, here, here and here) including MOS-guidelines on how to structure articles. Beside that, it looks like he has a conflict of interest regarding Mountmellick GAA and Ballinagar GAA. The last article reinstated after being removed for copyvio.

    A few examples:

    1. Is unclear in what the scope is of its own articles, like Killeigh parish. There was extensive discussion about this at Talk:Killeigh parish. The article was moved to draft space by @Guliolopez: but straight moved back into main space by Budisgood without changing a letter.
    2. Stating that GAA-clubs are part of the local Roman Catholic parish: here (in fact, multiple times)
    3. Copying my userpage to his user page here
    4. Claiming that the borders of baronies are based on the borders of RC-parishes, while baronies were instituted in a time that the Catholic church was illegal and prosecuted. See User_talk:Budisgood#Strange_edits
    5. Adding short description that are far too long, like here
    6. Copyright violations, Ballinagar GAA etc.
    7. Does not understand the principles of proper sourcing, like here and in an earlier version of Ballinagar GAA where he tried to source historical venues with Google Maps.
    8. falsifying protection templates here

    And this is without [58] his struggles on Commons where he is fighting (by removing deletion templates) to keep files that are - in my humble opinion - copyvio. The Banner talk 14:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Banner seems to have taken on a personal veto against me and as far as I can see there is no apparent reason. Any relevant advice given on article structures was taken on board and can be seen in the editing of Shanahoe GAA,other recommendations about my edits such as including page number in source of the information of large file aswell as other recommendations that have been made by editors such as but not limited to user:The Banner have all been taken into consideration in my edits.As for copying userpage it can be seen from looking at my userpage i did not copy the Banners userpage I simply used some of the same things that are on his userpage.
    As for copyright on Ballinagar GAA there is no copyright on Ballinagar GAA and infact during editing of it I used a copyright tool to ensure of this.
    As for scope of articles such as Killeigh parish I made a proposal to remove the article and any small amounts of relevance be merged into related articles but this was stopped by another editor which objected to this.
    Overall from my experience with The Banner he has been very petty and this is also backed up by other editors who agreed many of his revisions undoing my edits were questionable especially since some of what was removed was sourced-in one case another editor restored sourced information that the banner repeatedly removed.This has undoubtably lowered my ability to see him as a credible unbiased editor and not just someone with a personal grudge against me and as he seems to wish to report me I intend on taking my own actions against him. Budisgood (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a personal veto against you????
    In fact, many times I have tried to help you. Regarding the copyvio at Ballinagar GAA, see the log book of this page. The Banner talk 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your actions seem to be touch and go either hot or cold, like holding your hands near a boiling kettle it seems like its helping you by warming you but at any second it could spit and burn you,I see this as a very good summarisation of your actions. You go from acting genuinely helpfull and a beneficial editor until suddenly are triggered and return to disruptive editing and not providing proper reasoning for your actions and in your haste removing relevant information. Budisgood (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Budisgood: There is no tool which can perfectly tell if some text might be a WP:Copyvio problem. If you are primarily relying on tools to tell you if something is a copyvio I suggest you stop. While using such tools isn't forbidden, they're really intended to help others detect if someone else's work might be a copyvio. Instead you need to change the process you use when writing stuff such that copyvios are unlikely. And copyvios are a very serious thing here. While editors will generally try to help you, it is completely on you to change your editing as needed to ensure you don't make copyright violations. Don't expect editors to hold your hand to help you avoid copyvios and don't be surprised if editors get very frustrated with you if you introduce copyright violations especially if you do it again after being warned and that you will quickly be indefinitely blocked for it. It does seem some revisions of Ballinagar GAA have been deleted as copyvio. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see who introduced these revisions but if it was you that means you did introduce copyright violations in the past and should not be downplaying this. It may be that some earlier revisions of the page were not copyright violations and so these were kept. But regardless you need to ensure you never introduce copyright violations ever again and also don't deny you did it when people mention it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the tool to check for copyright after I was told by an editor that a copyright tool they used showed that it could possibly copyright Budisgood (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're saying is still fairly unclear. If someone said a specific tool suggested a copyvio problem and you're surprised by this then it might be interesting to try that exact tool and see what it says. If it turns out this editor seems to be wrong about what the tool says then it's reasonable to ask the editor what's up. However if someone has said something is a copyvio problem then for you as the writer, there's no need to use any tool. You should be able to say it's not a copyvio because you know it's not because of how you wrote the text. You definitely cannot use any tool to prove it's not a copyvio, that would require human judgment comparing the alleged source text and what you said you wrote. More to the point, there seems to be no doubt that someone did introduce a copyvio since some version of the Ballinagar GAA remains deleted and you don't seem to have challenged this. If you are the one who introduced this text, then yes you did introduce a copyvio at one time so you shouldn't be downplaying this even if you've now gotten better. The fact that other stuff you've done may not be copyvio doesn't mean what you earlier did wasn't copyvio. And you do need to make sure that you do not introduce such copyvios again. Just to be clear, you cannot do this by any tools, you can only do this by changing how you edit so that your previous mistake doesn't repeat. Since you did copy the entirety of The Banner's user page as you acknowledged [59] I wonder if there are fundamental problems with how you edit. Do you ever copy and paste some text from elsewhere and then re-write it? If you do this, you need to stop that ASAP and never do that again. Even if you don't accidentally save the text you copied and pasted, editing in that way means you are almost definitely going to introduce copyvios. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be interesting to compare this archived page and the first version of Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC. The Banner talk 23:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you need to use a copyright tool to prevent yourself from committing copyright infringement, there's a serious WP:CIR issue here to deal with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I subsequently used copyright tool after another editor raised that they were concerned it might be copyright Budisgood (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Budisgood from mainspace and file space, as well as uploads, because of the copyright issues raised in this thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Banner and Disruptive editing

    [edit]

    User:The Banner seems to have taken on a personal veto aginst me and as far as I can see there us no apparent reason. Any relevant advice given on article structures was taken on board and can be seen in the editing of Shanahoe GAA,other recommendations about my edits such as including page number in source of the information of large file aswell as other recommendations that have been made by editors such as but not limited to user:The Banner have all been taken into consideration in my edits.As for copying userpage it can be seen from looking at my userpage i did not copy the Banners userpage I simply used some of the same things that are on his userpage. As for copyright on Ballinagar GAA there is no copyright on Ballinagar GAA and infact during editing of it I used a copyright tool to ensure of this. As for scope of articles such as Killeigh parish my proposal to remove the article and any small amounts of relevance be merged into related articles but this was stopped by another editor which objected to this. Overall from my experience with The Banner he has been very petty and this is also backed up by other editors who agreed many of his revisions undoing my edits were questionable especially since some of what was removed was sourced-in one case another editor restored sourced information that the banner repeatedly removed.This has undoubtably lowered my ability to see him as a credible unbiased editor and not just someone with a personal grudge against me and as he seems to wish to report me I intend on taking my own actions against him. User:The Banner has since also decided to go and report me in another attempt to damage my reputation, it is understandable to give an editor recommendations if you dont agree with their editing methods and constructive criticism is even fair enough but The Banner's actions are just plain disruptive editing and I have raised these comcerns of how he undermines my edits but the problem is still not resolved, his actions leave me with no other choice but to report him in the hope that we can arive at some resolution to this problem. Budisgood (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pure retaliation. And the full unedited copy of my user page can be seen in this version of his user page. The Banner talk 00:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pure Retaliation" keep playing the blame game if you wish continue to convince yourself that u have done nothing, we are free to believe what we wush but truth is truth fmmmm Budisgood (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Budisgood, can you explain why you thought it constructive to post two copies of more or less the exact same message on ANI? Also why on earth does your signature above use the exact same formatting as The Banner's? Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Budisgood, it's incredibly troubling that after two different editors raised concerns over you copying The Banner's signature format, you chose to just change the signature to a normal one [60] without mentioning anywhere that you'd done so. Given this and some of your other replies, I'm starting to get the feeling you think correcting your mistakes somehow means they magically disappear as if you never made them. That's not how Wikipedia, or frankly most of the world, works. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, while I don't understand why you copied The Banner's signature format it's not a big deal. Frankly even if you'd just replied when modifying the signature and said something like "whops sorry I made a mistake and have changed my signature to a standard one" and didn't offer further explanation, I doubt anyone would have cared to query this further even if it is fairly weird. (Did you copy The Banner's complain and modify it? If so this is a very weird thing to do, still not by itself something I'd care about except in so much my point above how you really should not do that when trying to summarise what some source has written about something.) Likewise I'm not that fussed about you copying The Banner's user page and modifying it, again except if it reveals something about how you sometimes deal with summarising what other sources have written. The copyvio is a far bigger deal but it is a mistake editors make so not by itself disqualifying. The problem is that you seem to keep acting as if you didn't do something you did, rather than acknowledging your mistakes when they come up. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, it is a more structural problem, as shown in his actions on Commons. Copy from internet, removed as copyvio, uploaded again, removed as copyvio. The Banner talk 12:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is things being highlighted here that are relevant I still dont see what actually is there of enough significance to warrant the report, anything that may have been copyright I consequently edited myself, and none of the reasons given are of recent actions so I am still confused as to why now I am being reported Budisgood (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Budisgood: I note you have not yet answered an administrator's question. Please do so immediately: This is a thread you started on an administrators' noticeboard. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you pinged the wrong person there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Corrected. Thanks Phil! SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that also apparently @Budisgood: went back and changed their signature where it had copied The Banner's to not copy it, which makes this even weirder. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Budisgood: is there a reason that you copied The Banner's signature in your filing this counter-complaint? I'm a bit confused as to how that happened, and I'd like to understand why. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rsk6400 reported by User:TwinBoo

    [edit]

    I’ve come here to report the user above for his misconduct on the Template:Discrimination page. He has insisted there should be a criteria for pages linked, and even after I filed an RfC that disagreed with him he has refused to oblige and reverted my subsequent edit [61]. Even before this, without consensus, he has been reverting edits against his views [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67].

    Alongside disregarding the RfC, he labelled it as "bogus" [68], and reverted the disruptive editing warning I left him [69]. He has derided anyone against him as "edit warring" [70], despite the fact he is the one causing most of the template's disputes. This is a blatant violation of WP:OWN and he should at least be blocked from editing the page. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First you should stop edit warring. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TwinBook, your comments imply that an RfC found a consensus that Rsk6400 is violating ("an RfC that disagreed with him", "disregarding the RfC"), but the RfC was only opened 10 December and has not reached consensus yet. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? The RfC has been open since the 2 December (nearing 2 weeks!) and has been getting an exceptionally slow response. Rsk has not waited and still redirected others to his non-existent "consensus" on the talk page. I’m doubtful a full consensus will even be reached seeing how little replies have appeared… —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I misread date of last comment for when it was opened. But it's still an open RfC. Schazjmd (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want point out that (1) TwinBoo used Template:uw-disruptive3 on my talk page without any reasonable justification[71], (2) their RfC is faulty, as I pointed out to them in a discussion more than a week ago[72], (3) they haven't made any contribution to the discussion on Template_talk:Discrimination since Dec 3rd, see the page history, and - maybe not so important - that I corrected "bogus" to "faulty" hours before they complained about that word[73]. Sorry for the last point, but for the rest, I think it's a boomerang. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without any reasonable justification, eh? It’s a template for disruptive edits, which I think I have shown there is no shortage of; as for the discussion, any points I make don't seem to get across to you, instead you opt to ignore me and anyone else hoping they will back down and let you have hegemony over the template.
    Finally, I don't see why you're so mad about the RfC. It's not worth creating one on another page as that won't account for all of the other pages, and I don't understand your comment about how it doesn't apply to our disagreement — even if it was acceptable in your eyes, I'm sure you'd refuse to oblige to any result that doesn't favour your view, as you've exhibited on the template. I apologise that it had to come to a report, but if you were willing to reach a settlement this could've been avoided. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ONUS, It isn't on him to justify not including your edit and work towards a "settlement". Also WP:STEWARDSHIP, being the initiator of most disputes (the one disputing content) is not "causing" disputes, it's the nature for the encyclopedia, WP:BRD. The template wasn't called for either, and what you were doing was effectively edit warring as well.
    I think a trouting at minimum is in order for the opener. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without such a "trouting", TwinBoo will think that edit warring is OK and that templating a constructive user for "disruptive editing" is OK, too. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Apprentix

    [edit]
    Apprentix blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Apprentix started a discussion on Talk:Sabean colonization of Africa claiming that "there's not one source out of the 600 Sabaic Manuscripts mentioning an Imperial colonisation into Africa" (keep in mind that this article had multiple sources supporting every claim before he PRODed the article and began a process of deleting everything that he didn't like [74] [75] including whole sourced paragraphs and the lead which he claimed was "imposter content" when the source cited clearly mentioned both of those words (anyone with jstor access can confirm this) and then he later changed the reason of its removal) and started the same discussion with a personal attack towards the guy who created the article calling him a Yemeni nationalist.

    After I replied to him he continued with the personal attack and called him "a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians"
    after which I warned him on his talk page (he later deleted the warning)

    after that he replied on the article talk with "[....]This is clearly a defimation and is a shaming that you cannot hide your bias as you support this stupidity.[...]" which I am pretty sure isn't allowed.
    He later continued with this cycle of personal attacks on the talk page with everytime he gets warned by me, he deletes the warning. This continued and got a 4im warning by AirshipJungleman29 but that did not stop him from issuing a personal attack in his PROD.

    Apart from the PA stuff, he is editing disruptively and was not willing to respond to multiple of requests from me to discuss the cited stuff he was deleting from the article without consensus as it can be seen on the talk page of the article with him disregarding all the sources from the article as "garbage" or remarks like "Just because it was cited it means nothing" Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you trying to silence me? you're trying everything in your might to keep Sabean colonization of Africa focus on that instead of trying to slander me, you've taken almost every point you stated above out of context and almost all those issues you stated have been resolved. And the sections I removed were removed because the deletation tag permitted me to edit non important sections or stuff containing Wikipedia:Fictitious references. Apprentix (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You never warned me for saying "a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians", All I did was state the motives of the possible creation the article, since there's no sources or historical evidence on a "Sabean colonization of Africa". Apprentix (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot use a historical event and not use any historical backing, that means it never happened and makes a very weak page on wikipedia hence why many of the section including "criticism of the migration hypthesis" was removed. please go back and check before making propsterous claims and actually understand why I'd nominated this page for deletation, thanks. Apprentix (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of turning this into ugly/erratice discourse, please respond in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabean colonization of Africa. Apprentix (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not for content disputes, but per my reply there your reasoning is not sound: an article being based on 21st-century consensus is a good thing, as we value present scholarly consensus and moreover are not ourselves qualified to challenge or downplay it. Remsense ‥ 论 20:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apprentix has been put back in the drawer. Izno (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You never warned me for saying "a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians"
    I know that this was already closed but just for the record Mr. Neo, I did warn you for that and you deleted that warning Abo Yemen✉ 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jalghoula persistent unsourced edits

    [edit]
    Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This account has been adding unsourced material, edit-warring, and/or making (pro-Tunisian) POV edits ever since it appeared; e.g. long-term edit-warring/POV-pushing at Harissa ([76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]) and unsourced additions at Hafsid dynasty ([83], [84]). This has continued in recent edits:

    • [85], [86] (unsourced flag)
    • [87] (unexplained deletion of sourced content + unsourced additions)
    • [88] (unsourced POV edit)
    • [89] (unsourced addition)
    • [90] (unsourced addition, incompatible with sources here and elsewhere)

    They've been asked many times to stop these behaviours and improve their editing ([91], [92], [93], [94]). After a final warning yesterday ([95]), they made another unsourced addition today at Hafsid architecture: [96]. After being reverted, they immediately re-added it while citing a source that does not support (and if anything contradicts) their claim: [97] (I checked the source personally). They're not getting the message. R Prazeres (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    KindHorta hounding and vandalism

    [edit]
    I have warned KindHorta under WP:GENSEX and KindHorta has agreed to stay away from Transgender health care misinformation. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this was closed, KindHorta was issued a 31 hour block. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has been WP:NOTHERE for years and recently started hounding me on an article I wrote because I got them partially blocked for continued misbehavior. They disclosed their IP on their userpage for ~1 year before being partially blocked for LOUTSOCKING, at which point they pledged to quit LOUTSOCKING[98] and removed the IP declaration from their userpage.[99]. I asked Yamla about an INDEF block and was directed to find an uninvolved admin.[100]

    As an IP editor, they've been previously taken to ANI and warned/blocked for homophobic vandalism and forumy comments at coprophagia[101] (adding Gay men routinely smear and/or rub feces on each other during gay sex and also ingest feces directly by inserting their tongue into each others anus when performing rimming to the article[102]) and Defense of Marriage Act[103] (changing "same sex" to sodomy). As mentioned here by @Yamla, they've edited under another account as well which has also engaged in homophobic vandalism and personal attacks. I won't publicly link it, but @Generalrelative can also speak to that. @Ponyo has also blocked them previously.

    I came across them because a friend told me about serious BLPvios on Crackhead Barney and I've been reverting vandalism since. At the article, they've repeatedly added non-oversighted BLPVios (insulting her in wikivoice) and oversighted ones. He accused me of being in cahoots with her because we are both "transsexual lesbians" (slightly more funny than offensive bc she isn't trans afaict...) - Just because someone claims to be a transexual lesbian does not mean the rest of the world should feel sorry for them and they get special treatment. So far, your actions with this article are giving her special treatment which is unfair to the rest of the project and to be blunt, against the rules..[104][105] I reported the continued LOUTSOCKING and attacks to Yamla, who then blocked the IP.[106]

    Immediately after, he updated his userpage and began to make edits to trans health care misinformation, the latest article I wrote. [107] The first comment was ...Allowing underage children to be subjected to gender affirming surgery and self-mutilation in order to spare them from purported suffering due to ROGD goes contrary to the obligations of society and the laws in most states. There are many gay and trans activists which support lowering the age of consent based on some of the same rationale. Most of these trans articles on wikipedia are POV forks of the same subject. This one seems to enshrine and demonize any disagreement to the trans lifestyle (emphases added)[108] He's since continued with WP:IDHT, claiming the article is unbalanced and should be rewritten/tagged, based on long forumy WP:PROFRINGE rants. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article in question is a POV fork with the title "Misinformation" for what is more properly termed "controversies". Not everyone agrees that trans topics are "misinformation" based on the numerous state and federal law bans on transgender health care for minors based on an opposing body of medical evidence. Focus on content, not personal attacks. I have not posted any "hounding" content to this users talk page, while they on the other hand have posted non stop threats to my user page and accusations which are anything but AGF. They need to calm down and AGF, instead of trying to silence and retaliate against any editor who disagrees with their articles. The article in question needs to be reviewed (and possibly renamed). Not everyone agrees and other editors have commented that the page in question is a POV fork and "misinformation" in it's own right. KindHorta (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user also has been patrolling Crackhead Barney's article and edit warring with the entire planet, and has admitted (just now in fact) to acting as a meat puppet for Crackhead Barney in opposing any and all edits to that article (a friend told me about the edits according to YFNS -- wonder who that was). KindHorta (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By definition, an article about misinformation will contain things that some people don't think are misinformation. Nevertheless, it's a notable topic, and must be written using reliable sources and not personal beliefs. If you're not willing to do that, stay off the page. – bradv 01:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So be it. I will stay off the page. KindHorta (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 103.100.136.78

    [edit]
    Blocked. These kinds of reports should generally go to WP:AIV instead of AN/I. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    103.100.136.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:What-ifpaypay creating hoaxes and vandalizing

    [edit]
    Indef'd by Zzuuzz - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is disruptively creating hoaxes, see Egnes Darrines and Magnes Beerines. They also are socking to remove CSD tags, and are engaging in page-move vandalism, moving Cebu Pacific to Cegnes Pacifes. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE, and are only here to vandalize and cause disruption. I've already filed a report at WP:AIV but also wanted to report them here. CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Teterev53

    [edit]
    Teterev53 (talk · contribs) is reminded to assume good faith and to follow dispute resolution and content decision-making processes. Teterev53 is warned against casting aspersions against other editors in content disputes and treating discussions like battlegrounds. They are also warned against asserting ownership over specific topics, as exhibited through move-warring (1, 2) and creating content forks. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was NPP reviewing History of World Chess Championships when I realised that it was a copy-pasted version of List of World Chess Championships, somewhere around this version [109], that too without attribution. As a result, I redirected it to the original article, which was reverted by User:Teterev53. Trying to figure out why he violated Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia, and circumvent WP:Consensus, I msged him on his talk page, which he originally reverted (it seems he has blanked similar msgs before too, and all msgs as well). After I had to make him discuss it, he has been combative, seems to completely lack WP:Competence looking at his replies implying he doesn't know what dummy edits are, and his definition of splitting and his blanking of an active discussion. He also seems to show WP:Ownership, and a bizzare act of WP:Personal attacks saying he does not want to discuss it further with someone with 5 stars. He also threatened to roll back the original article (which is btw, an FL now). I have tried to assume good faith, but it does not seem to work, so I came here, as he has also done so with other editors, looking at the talk page history. I'll notify him, and make another edit here to present the evidence of past such behaviour. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The creation of the history article is my editorial decision. Compared to the current version of the list article, much information about wins, draws, and losses has been added/restored, for example. And the data were updated. What rules prohibit splitting an article with rewriting in the future? There are no such rules. If this user wants, he can use the AfD process, not simply delete by redirecting it themselves. Teterev53 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Teterev53, forking an article isn't recommended, no. There is indeed a rule (a guideline) about this at WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This guideline suggests that the fork should be merged into the original article and then redirected. win8x (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, @Win8x- that's watch I did, redirected it, as any merger would have gone against the implicit consensus of what that article should look like. Given that there was no attempt of discussing that by Teterev when he made the fork, I assumed he knows there is no merger likely. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This will be my only edit to you here, because I do not want to deal with your disruptive behaviour again. Gonna have to repeat myself, it seems (great, you blanked the info about an ongoing ANI thread about you /s)- if you want to add that, discuss it- it might be a good idea or not, but we discuss. This is not what splitting is, unless you lack WP:Competence, you probably know what splitting means. I mentioned why you could not perform this "split" on the talk page. AfD is for deletion, not redirects.
      And your first line- if violating WP:Copyright and circumventing WP:Consensus, among other things, is your editorial rights, then maybe you should not be editing. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, we can see him blanking an editor asking him why he went against WP:OFFICIALNAME with the edit summary "full nonsense" [110], which lead to this ANI thread here (which also shows his combinative nature). Another "nonsense" revert here [111]. A talk about his disruptive editing here [112] and here [113] (both the lowermost sections). I am sure I would find more, but going through the page's talk history is hard. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a battlegroud mentality of this user to take here very old discussions. Full nonsense is to blame user for blanking of talk page. Per WP:BLANKING, the policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Teterev53 (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Teterev53: You should not create content forks. It is not in your "editorial discretion" to do so; it is against guidelines. While you're allowed to remove talk page messages, you should communicate with other editors about their concerns rather than dismissing them as "nonsense".
      @DoctorWhoFan91: You should bring this article to AfD and note that you are requesting a redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As you can see on my talk page I communicated with this user, explaining my actions in details. But he doesn't hear anything, looking for old discussions on my page. Teterev53 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will note that for when I do have to request such a thing- thank you @Voorts for telling me that's possible. But this is pretty much an uncontroversial redirect- isn't AfD for discussable articles, not ones made against policies and guidelines. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not uncontroversial because it was contested. AfD is the proper forum. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not according to policy though- unless being contested includes even reasons going against the policy?(genuine question, I know tone can be misjudged in text) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, per WP:BLAR. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Umm, it doesn't actually mention what to do when the article being redirected is against policy though. Thanks though, I never noticed that part of WP:BLAR, as I only use it for notability-lacking articles. Also, what is the consensus of all this- is it automatically a redirect for failing WP:REDUNDANTFORKS, do I, or him, discuss it on the "List of.." article, or should I AfD? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @DoctorWhoFan91 yes, AfD is the correct place for the discussion, unless your only problem with it is that it was copied without attribution? If that's the case, a dummy edit to restore the attribution is the correct move. If it's a content fork, with no independent notability from the initial article, it needs AfD, not just attribution repair. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The old discussions are to illustrate why I brought it up here and not some other noticeboard, as I do believe this level of disruptive behavior needs greater action which goes beyond the current issue. I'm citing policy, he is repeating "it's my right" to policy-breaking edits: how is this communication, with me having to literally revert the msg and literally threaten him with going to ANI (I am not sure if I should have done that) to make him discuss it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This editor, who has received 5 barnstars, is trying to dig up something from discussions in 2022 and 2023. Very big AGF. Teterev53 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be honest, Looking at Special:Diff/1263245413, you didn't exactly initiate with an inviting tone, and frankly, Special:Diff/1263220974 wasn't exactly de-escalating. That being said, 10000% he should have given attribution, and if there was a concern over lost information, he should have sook consensus for re-addition or moved on. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can you two stop bickering on ANI FFS DarmaniLink (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (You have swapped the diffs, I think) I checked his contributor history to figure out why it looked familiar to me, and scrolling through it, I saw he had similar actions before, so I assumed bad faith-sorry, should not have done that. Umm, the latter is me adding the ANI notice, which needs to be done, unless you meant a diff one.
    (reply to reply due to edit conflict) sorry, I'll stop. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff to the ANI notice was intended to be a link to the entire "thread" before it was blanked, apologies for any confusion. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ohh, okay. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent disruption by IP

    [edit]
    Rangeblocks and protection applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In World Chess Championship, a Kolkata based IP with the prefix 2409:40e0 is persistently introducing misinformation. Their response to attempts to discuss is to childishly copy/paste the same edit summary. Note that the editor has had a final warning on their talk page at another IP in this range, and this drew a similarly childish response. Note also the IP 157.40.78.190, also based in Kolkata and also attempting to restore their own version of the article against consensus. Request a range block, and increase in protection level for the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (I previously requested a range block at AIV, which has been applied fwiw.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pattern of Misconduct by User:Binksternet

    [edit]
    A consensus of uninvolved admins and editors has established no evidence of wrongdoing by Binksternet. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 11:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    As detailed below, I am reporting User:Binksternet for engaging in a pattern of concerning behavior that either violates or otherwise fails to comport with Wikipedia's Conduct Policies.

    The misconduct on December 1, 2024:

    [edit]

    WP:Wikihounding prohibits "the singling out of one or more editors...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Yet on December 1, 2024, User:Binksternet followed User:Taisymui from place to place no less than 40 times across 40+ articles, reverting 40+ good faith edits by User:Taisymu, and belittling User:Taisymui's edits by remarking "Rv clumsy insertion..." in the edit summaries: [114] • [115] • [116] • [117] • [118] • [119] • [120] • [121] • [122] • [123] • [124] • [125] • [126] • [127] • [128] • [129] • [130] • [131] • [132] • [133] • [134] • [135] • [136] • [137] • [138] • [139] • [140] • [141] • [142] • [143] • [144] • [145] • [146] • [147] • [148] • [149] • [150] • [151] • [152] • [153] • [154] • [155].

    Though the clear "Dont's" of edit summaries under WP:ESDONTS include "Don't make snide remarks" and "Don't be aggressive", User:Binksternet violated WP:Civility 40+ times (often consecutively) to target a single user. The behavior amounted to direct rudeness under WP:Civility---"belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries."

    The behavior of hounding User:Taisymui 40+ times across 40+ articles also constituted WP:Harassment. In no way did this behavior comport with WP:AGF. Similarly, this behavior did not seek to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM "instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution..." as required under Wikipedia's Editing Policy.

    Just last month, User:Binksternet had been told by User:Qwerfjkl that writing "Nope nope nope" and "Rv image vandalis" were [Unhelpful Edit Summaries] in response to good faith edits. However, User:Binksternet immediately double downed on this behavior and told User:Qwerfjkl to:

    Loosen up. Those edit summaries were meant to alert longstanding editors that consensus was being violated. I'm not going to change my style for the few times I choose to sound the alarm.

    The misconduct on December 7, 2024:

    [edit]

    On December 7, 2024, User:Binksternet followed User:223.122.121.59 from place to place on Wikipedia, reverting their good faith edits without leaving a valid explanation in the edit summaries: [156] • [157] • [158] • [159] • [160] • [161] • [162]. The only explanation User:Binksternet left in the edit summaries was “Rv Hong Kong Ips”. This suggested that the only reason the edits were targeted and reverted were because they came from an IP address thought to be located in Hong Kong.

    Once again, such behavior does not align with WP:AGF. It needlessly hounds a single editor for good faith edits, and tends to perpetuate the "common misconceptions" of unregistered users listed in WP:IPDIS.

    The misconduct has since continued:

    [edit]

    Since December 7, 2024, User:Binksternet's behavior has only persisted. On December 9, 2024, User:Binksternet followed User:147.194.198.21 from place to place on Wikipedia across more than 20 articles, reverting each of their edits: [163] • [164] • [165] • [166] • [167] • [168] • [169] • [170] • [171] • [172] • [173] • [174] • [175] • [176] • [177] • [178] • [179] • [180] • [181] • [182] • [183] • [184] • [185]. User:Binksternet subjected User:104.172.242.210 to similar behavior on December 10, 2024: [186] • [187] • [188].

    Meanwhile, since November 28, 2024, User:Binksternet's behavior with User:Sricsi and User:Kirtap92 at the Love for Sale (Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga album):has all but resembled WP:Edit Warring [189] • [190] • [191] • [192] • [193].

    As well, User:Binksternet's behavior of reverting good faith edits with little to no explanation has also continued. The behavior continues to produce edit summaries containing snide remarks like "RV clumsy insertion", "unimportant", and "not very important": [194] • [195] • [196] • [197] • [198] • [199] • [200] • [201] • [202] • [203] • [204] • [205] • [206] • [207] • [208] • [209] • [210] • [211] • [212].

    Left unchecked, I am deeply concerned that this misconduct will continue. 174.208.225.98 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a bit strange to see an IP following around all the edits of Taisymui and complain about it. The Banner talk 01:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we're here, I wasn't sure whether to add a new post for @Taisymui as they've had the aforementioned warnings (three total) but are still posting [213] promotional/LLM-generated text (I came across this whilst wandering off from newcomer tasks earlier & remembered that this might need to come to AIV if warnings aren't heeded, since we need to explain this). I'd say that your earlier warnings seem to be warranted, but should I add as a new post here & let the user know? I haven't yet since they were already mentioned above, but I can see that there's nothing on their page about AIV yet. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further diffs of AI/promotional wording after warnings - AI tends to write like that so I don't think it's spam per se? The account hasn't edited for over a week (3rd Dec), which is why I didn't bring it up until I saw this. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the reason that Binksternet reverted the IP from Hong Kong is because he thought it was some long-term vandal or other. He tends to follow Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned and blocked editors (specifically "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.") when it comes to vandals and long-term abusers of Wikipedia. wizzito | say hello! 02:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, absent evidence of vandalism, isn't it problematic to just assume that an IP from Hong Kong is a long-term vandal? I don't see how this is aligned with WP:AGF.
    Although WP:HUMAN is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it emphasizes that "As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia. Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users may be mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted. This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects." 174.208.229.141 (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My behavior on Wikipedia is consistent with someone who wishes to make the encyclopedia more authoritative and reliable. Regarding WP:HOUND, the guideline says that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." This is the exact practice that is described above. Someone is observed making errors on multiple pages, and those errors are followed and fixed by concerned editors. I am simply a concerned editor who wants to prevent Wikipedia from harm. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the behavior didn't rise the level of hounding, per WP:BRINE, "Incivility is not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the "correct" position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Civility is expected of all editors; incivility is harmful to the functioning of the project irrespective of the merits of an underlying dispute."
    I struggle to see how, for example, writing "Nope nope nope" in an edit summary reverting good faith edits by User:Qwerfjkl constitutes a civil or appropriate explanation for the edits/reversions under WP:CIV or WP:UNRESPONSIVE which reads "Be helpful: explain your changes." Nor do I understand how it "alerts longstanding editors that consensus was being violated". I struggle similarly with edit summaries composed of nothing more than remarks like "RV clumsy insertion", "unimportant", and "not very important".
    In my view, this type of behavior is what WP:CIV cautions users to avoid--"belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries.174.208.229.141 (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Directly above, the policy language says It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. And yet the OP/IP feels highly confident in concluding that edit summaries such as "unimportant" and "Nope nope nope" are powerful evidence of incivility. I am unconvinced. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "Rv unsupported date"? Is that uncivil too? Or should people just be allowed to add unreferenced dates wherever they wish? Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think I would write edit summaries in those ways but I think it’s obvious that he is commenting on the content and not on the contributor. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but you could say the same of the examples provided under d. of the section entitled "Direct Rudeness" for WP:ICA. This section reads: "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment...
    belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. 'that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen', 'snipped crap')." Under the policy, the phrase "snipped crap" is still considered "uncivil" and "belittling an editor" even though the phrase "snipped crap" is a reference to the content. 174.208.229.141 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a helluva lot of diffs here but before drawing any conclusions, it would be nice if many of these examples could be examined and evaluated. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you so much, Liz. 174.208.229.141 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looked at diff:193 to diff:234, the first section. The edit summary left is similar to the standard "RV clumsy insert, not suitable for current content. AI text, removed". They are not snide. It looks like bulk content removal standard message edit summary, one article done after another. It looks like all ai-generated text blocks have been added several dozen articles and then correctly removed. I don't see any problem here. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looked at diff:242 diff:264. Looks like an IP editor adding unsourced content, dates across more than a dozen articles. Edit sumamry is fine. I don't see any examples of hounding. The IP editor seems to think the place is a fan site and its ok to add unsourced content that was correctly removed. I don't see any problem here. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP: 202.169.114.130

    [edit]
    Blocked for 3 months for disruptive editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    202.169.114.130 is a disruptive editor on a number of levels.

    • 1. They have a COI with the neo-nazi organisation National Socialist Network, and continue to edit that page frequently. This has included removal of large sections that reflect badly on this organisation, and then edit warring to keep them removed
    • 2. They have a history of edit warring, which is now continuing on the page for Corowa
    • 3. Their edits are often unsourced or use far-right sources like "the noticer" which is clearly a far-right rag
    • 4. They were previously blocked for a month for edit warring, and immediately replied "male" to the admin blocking them. The admin mentions on their userpage that they are transgender, so I assume the "male" comment was a transphobic slur. GraziePrego (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued disruptive editing/edit warring from User:Insane always after edit warring block.

    [edit]
    Nothing to do here right now. If problems recur, they can be addressed iff they do. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At 6 December, User:Insane always was blocked for one week for edit warring and personal attacks. It was about an image for Cyclone Fengal. Now that the block is lifted, the user continues to edit war about the image (see diff). The user knows how to use the talk page, but refuses to discuss with me and other users (see diff). We had a discussion at Talk:2024 North Indian Ocean cyclone season#Cyclone Fengal (Image) and Talk:Cyclone Fengal#Image for Infobox about it and I pinged the user about it. There was no consensus as of now. Perhaps I'm being harsh since the user is relatively new, but the recent blocks and person attacks made me issue a report here. It is noted that the user made some of the images of Cyclone Fengal. INeedSupport :3 02:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to mention that the user used multiple IPs before and during the one week block. Examples of which can be seen here, here, and here. INeedSupport :3 03:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:INeedSupport, they have only made two edits after their block was over. I think it is premature to bring them to ANI when they are just coming off a block and haven't continued with the same disruption. It's time now to see if the block has changed their behavior and give them a chance to respond to this complaint. They have already been sanctioned for their prior behavior, they should only face consenquences if that behavior has continued after the block is over. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. INeedSupport :3 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Immediate Blocking of sock User:NairaAadhya01

    [edit]
    User:NairaAadhya01 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. As a general rule, User:Seyamar, please do not edit, especially project pages like ANI, logged out. You've made nearly 2 dozen edits in the past hour, if you are going to continue, then change your Wikibreak enforcer or stop editing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So I am User: Seyamar who generally edit articles related to the epic poem Mahabharata. Recently I took a wikibreak, but the articles such as Madri, Kunti and Shalya have been vandalised by NairaAadhya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is definitely another sockpuppet of the infamous Kairakairav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Following are the proof:

    • Similarly style as most previous sock accounts (for eg the sockmaster had accounts like User:NairaAadhya,

    User:NairaKairav, User:NairaKairavKaira, User:NairaKaishu, User:NairaKrishnaKairaKairavAkshu, User:NairaKuhu, User:NairaKuhu02, User:NairaKuhu03, see the entire list here)

    • Trying to talk with this user is useless, they will never respond and persist to vandalised despite attempts made by other users as well
    • The sock master has a long history of removing sourced correct information from various articles and changing them spurious ones upto her own liking, recently the user edited the article Madri and replaced all sourced info with random bullshit, kindly revert those edits
    • Immediately banning is required to prevent further disruption.

    2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a reason you posted this while logged out? Also this seems like a case for WP:SPI, not ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: Yes, I can't log in as I had enabled the Wikibreak enforcer, also that Sock master is extremely dangerous, capable of turning several articles upside down in matter of hours (see their edits of oast sockpuppets), so immediately banning was required, however as always they will make another account and this cycle will unfortunately go on. Most nerve -wreking thing is that they will never respond, tell the motive behind their actions and most importantly, is determined to add her own damn fanfics. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0 (talk • contribs)
    Alright, that's fair. And looks like Daniel Case has nailed 'em. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know the OP is the user they claim to be? Unless identity can be confirmed, admins should enforce the wiki break and block the ip. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A543:E4F:8674:51B5 (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    C3B4ME6's rather peculiar user page

    [edit]
    The editor's disruptive pages have been deleted and the user warned. They edit sporadically and have not edited since December 13. If they resume their disruption in future, they can be brought back here for sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @C3B4ME6 has a truly bold user page, stating they are a developer of well known 'amazing free online source' Wikipedia. They have also created a strange draft named Draft:Titus DPS 8C.

    Not quite sure of there intentions, but claiming to be a 'major' developer of wikipedia is odd. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That user page is hogwash. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks humorous to me. Has anyone had a chat with them about it before bringing it here? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming to be a developer without actually being one (we have no way of proving if they are) is not humorous. That said, it probably should have been addressed on their user talk instead of being pulled to ANI directly, yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What a Consignment of Geriatric Shoe Makers. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Muhammad Yunus article

    [edit]

    Moved from WP:AN. @NAUser0001 user Adding defamatory content to the Muhammad Yunus article without independent and reliable sources. I told him/her on the talk page that Indian media sources can't be considered reliable and independent in controversial, defamatory issues. Add independent media sources like BBC, The New York Post, Washington Post, DW, Al Jazeera, etc., and international media sources for his/her claim. but not listening and reverting the edit again and again. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 08:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Niasoh, this should have been posted at WP:ANI as it doesn't require the attention of the administrator community. Secondly, no action will be taken until you provide diffs/edits that are examples of the behavior you are finding problematic. You have to produce evidence to support your claims. Liz Read! Talk! 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz It appears to be a valid issue, and it may require admin attention as the user is adding very dubious information to a BLP. Moving this to ANI. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the addition of stuff like this, associating a BLP with the so-called American Deep State, George Soros etc., is conspiracy-theory level nonsense, and immediately suggest that the source (India Today) might have to be looked at again. They've also used Wikipedia as a source. I have pblocked NAUser0001 from the article concerned. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their other edits, Draft:Manoj Kumar Sah contains multiple unsourced BLP violations. Or at least it did, until I just removed them. Meanwhile, apparently I am a "biased, leftist writer attempting to whitewash Yunus's image" [214]. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite peculiar that several IPs have made POV commentary on offending user's TP (See [215] and [216]) and in here ([217]) and that the offending user appears to have interacted on one occasion ([218]) in what looks like an endorsement of tendentious editing. Is it possible that some kind of Puppetry (meat?) may be going on? Borgenland (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is unsurprising that multiple IPs have repeated Hindutva slogans and this editor has thanked them. Their POV was obvious even without that, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer

    [edit]
    INDEF BLOCK
    Spam canned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ginter96 (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since 2021 and in that time has done almost nothing but promote his business. I noticed an edit he made to Lithuanian cuisine a couple days ago was deleted as spam. Looking at his contributions, he has added himself to lists [219] and added his food truck to various articles [220], [221], [222], usually replacing existing content with his own. He's also tried creating articles about his own food truck. I think he should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. – bradv 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    Blocked and revdel'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think this speaks for itself: [223]. See also User_talk:Eblana22.

    Oh, and I'm aware of the risks of editing in my real name, but she's also stalking me on LinkedIn, which is vaguely creepy—even though it also means that she knows that she cannot call the Dublin police on me for reverting her edits.

    Thanks for your time — Patrick (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP for 48 hours, and redacted the edit summary. GiantSnowman 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Patrick (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    50.100.44.204

    [edit]

    50.100.44.204 has been repeatedly making requests at RFPP an wasting the admin's time 2603:8001:6940:2100:45DD:82B7:C7F7:24EA (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this fits under the chronic criteria. With only one edit in the last several days, and that was RFPP and while it didn't result in PP, it did result in the blocking of an editor. In fact of the 5 total RFPP, only 2 of them resulted in a decline, with the other 3 receiving some form of action. While they do seem to be heavy handed with the indef-pp, I'd suggest it isn't urgent nor chronic. Additionally, is there a reason why you haven't taken this to their talk page first? TiggerJay (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to comment here, but got an edit conflict with Tiggerjay saying the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleopatra

    [edit]
    Sobek2000 (talk · contribs) is blocked from editing Cleopatra for 31 hours for edit warring. Please discuss issues on article talk. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sobek2000 (talk · contribs) has made four consecutive reverts (1 was however minor) at Cleopatra restoring their preferred version: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4 (see also history). That was when / after User:Remsense had already warned them (diff), informed them about WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, and adviced them to self-rv until they establish consensus at the talkpage. I explained to them the reason for the RV and clarified that all they need is just consensus and some patience (discussion at my TP). I tried to clarify the same thing at the article's talkpage (discussion), yet some of my comments were labelled as nonsense, just like some of the article's contents. I can understand that it may be due to frustration, nevertheless the user already has more recent E.W. warnings (see talk) and said they had an older account that they abandoned for the same reasons, basically edit-warring (diff). Keep in mind that I even made it clear that some of their additions could well be restored, if more editors examined them and were okay with them (1 example). Piccco (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Last thing was not revertion - I simply made new edtition.
    Last warning was made when I was not aware of situation, and I was completely rights as even source of opposite site was agreeing with me. You completely mistepresented me - I did not abandon my old account - I stopped editing, because my editions kept being reverted and I was not confident enough to fight against it. It was before I had account, I was editing without it. I told about it to show you that I don't trust you - and you just show me I should not.
    I have no idea how "establishing consensus" looks like - I left changes and explained them. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to clarify - my last edition: I added things manually, nor reverting automatically. I added back only SOME things, I did not include my notes that need improvement. I left both matters in Talk and asked for any critique. I was open to discuss, but your entire argument was "you are new, keep waiting for more experienced person". If you don't think you are experienced enough to approve or not my changes, then what is even point of this? I am sure 'more experienced' person would eventually made their way and I could have actual discussion with them about content. Page needed few corrections and I provided them. I repeat: I did not borught back my entire old edition, only part of it that I think is the least problematic. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor

    [edit]
    NicolasTn (talk · contribs) is blocked from editing Amdo for 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being tendentious again, deleting referenced content and making subtle changes to citations [224] [225]. After three months, and having been reverted by at least two editors, they suddenly want to engage in discussion, but unsurprisingly not before changing the page to their preferred version first. Considering that they are a single-purpose account, I tend to agree with WP:NOTHERE per Ahri Boy. See previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the courtesy ping. I just need a full rest. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a content dispute. What is the justification for claiming WP:NOTHERE? Simonm223 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problematic edits to Excel Academy (Conroe, Texas)

    [edit]

    User:Mcgeeheather11 has made some concerning edits to Excel Academy (Conroe, Texas), discussing abuse that she apparently experienced there. This seems to be a violation of some sort of content policy (I don't have them all memorized), as it breaks the page's formatting and adds potentially libelous content.

    I'm not really sure who to take this report to, because although it is messing up the article format, I'm also quite concerned for her mental and physical wellbeing. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. 172.110.168.248 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just saw the banner, I don't really think this is oversight-worthy, since the company appears to be defunct, and there is no present crisis. I'm new to ANI, so I'm sorry about any policy mistakes I've made here. 172.110.168.248 (talk)
    I've written WP:OVERSIGHT because of the name mentioned. EEng 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Until oversight gets to it, I've revdel'd the revisions in question for the same reason. I guess it'd technically be (claimed as a) self-WP:OUTING, but it's still a pretty heavy WP:NOT violation either way and I'm pretty sure RD2 is appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Globallycz

    [edit]

    This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Wikipedia for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. Globallycz (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic semi-automated editing trouble

    [edit]

    Unfortunately, though the lion's share of the work he does is very much appreciated by me, I've tried to be patient and communicative with Srich32977 (talk · contribs) for a few months now, and I don't feel that has been consistently reciprocated. I don't want to pillory him, but following a saga where he had to eat a block for violating MOS:PAGERANGE in many of his copyediting sweeps after me repeatedly attempting to clarify apparent confusions and him promising point blank he got the message, only to lapse into an interpretative universe where the MOS's "should" somehow means "optional".

    Now, he has seemingly perennially ignored my posts on his talk page regarding how his AutoEd configuration replaces fullwidth characters where they are actually correct, e.g. actually in running fullwidth text.[226] For a few months I've just been reverting when his path crosses into Chinese-language articles and trying to get his attention without being a nuisance, and now I feel this is the only avenue left. I would just like him to respond to concerns in a consistent manner, like he has shown able to do at times. Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the long history of problems with this person's semi-automated editing and failure to respond to requests to follow MOS. This user talk archive search for "ranges" is just one example (repeatedly changing MOS-valid page range formats to invalid formats). As Remsense says above, a lot of the work is good and valid, but there are many invalid changes, and feedback is met with a combination of ignoring us, saying they will comply and then not doing it, or complying for a while and then resuming the invalid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1263537339"