Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 17 February 2024

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Proposed article-space block Greghenderson2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharing fake news in Misplaced Pages

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

A person with user name User:Vikepro is continuously sharing fake news in Misplaced Pages without citing reference. In his profile earlier he praise BJP and scolded Congress by citing fake scam and corruptions. This breaks Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. Please take proper steps against him. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you are required to notify editors when you open a thread on them. As per the top of the page. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment two steps above appears to be posted later than the comment below, who appears to be the actual OP. Of course, Vikepro didn't notify this user either. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Might have been my issue in merging the sections. But there's also the empty section, so not entirely sure what either is up to besides edit warring. Star Mississippi 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Misplaced Pages

A person with user name User:Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is continuously sharing fake news in Misplaced Pages without citing reference.I am continuously adding citations about the added article and this user repeatedly removing my article without any proper reasons. Evrytime i am giving proper reasons for my act but this user never bothering fo give reasons to remove my article. This breaks Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. This user is new in Misplaced Pages as this user joined this platform 26 days ago. I think this user is paid that's why he is spreading fake information.Please take proper steps against him.Vikepro (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have full-protected Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance for a week. You're both edit warring. If the disruption continues to move elsewhere, you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sir, i have added the valid citations so wheres my fault? The other editor who is removing my content is not giving any reasons and valid citations. Its mean the ither user is doing vandalism. You can research the news articles which i have given in the citations then you will realise that who is correct. Vikepro (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Can I ask for a favor? @Vikepro created a user page at the other user with a WP:PA in edit summary. Could you delete the page as it wasn't created by them ? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done @DaxServer. That's unsurprisingly, what lead to the prior block: User_talk:Vikepro#November_2023 cc @UtherSRG Star Mississippi 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  This comment of theirs is concerning aswell. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  On second look, both are still edit warring. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours and @Vikepro for two weeks following an earlier one week block. Leaving longer form notes on their Talks. Star Mississippi 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi The user is just editing Misplaced Pages for the purpose of promoting a political party only, Please have a look to this link at last he has written (जय भारतीय जनता पार्टी means Hail Bharatiya Janta Party) and also please see and Here Congress Mukt Bharat is political slogan which denotes end the Congress Party from India. He has defamed a particular party and promoted another political party. Please check his userpage history which is full of promotion and defamation. And many of his edits were disrupting other political alliances by removing some strong parties from it or decreasing its seats tally. And he was increasing seats tally of his favorable alliances. His given sources were not conveying the related claim.

• He is also calling admins "stupid" and "leftist" on @Shaan Sengupta's Talk page. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is now WP:NPA. Admins, grab the mop. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  He has already been blocked. Star Mississippi 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  There're some blind BJP supporter users like him. Who're continuously doing such disruptive edits. Spread wrong information. They use to attack INC and INDIA related topics. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Great person he is. All admins are communist. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown and timesinks

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

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

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

Other recent issues in span of a month

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

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

Remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS
• Intent to WP:HOUND
• Removal of edit warring notice
• Removal of ANI notice
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either)
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page)
• Personal attack
• WP:PA against Leventio

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

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( )
• Erroneous material ( )
• Readded boosterism () GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I didn't see all those.

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

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

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

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

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

IP editor - Repeated use of bare URLs, use of fake citation titles and lack of communication

I'm reporting 80.192.53.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because honestly I'm at a loss with this IP... they have been providing useful edits for a while under a couple of different IPs (which is of course normal), but have consistently either used bare URLs for citations and other times made up fake titles for sources... examples are below. I've tried multiple times, from November 2023 to today, to engage this user on their talk page, but have not once received any kind of acknowledgement. They have only once left a message on my talk page, about an unrelated issue - and I prompted them to read their messages on their talk page... but nothing has happened. Is there something that can be done to get this user to communicate, instead of other users having to tidy up their edits every time?

Bare URLs:

• - bare URL with title "6435 gets new owner", requiring manual removal before a bot like ReFill2 can be used
• and - both bare URLs with custom title, again requiring manual intervention instead of a bot
• - Again, bare URL with title

Examples of fake titles:

• - IP used "45690 to visit EOR" when the article linked was titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced"
• - IP used "5593 On sale" with an article titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced". They also used this in another article with the titles "5593 On sale" and "7760 On sale", and another with the title "7760 On sale".

Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I haven't linked each and every issue... In my eyes this is more a lack of communication than a behavioural issue - I would be more than happy to show the user how to easily add citations properly, but I can't seem to get through... Danners430 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to prevent LCSB archiving the discussion before someone is able to weigh in Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Danners430, bare URLs have some problems, but adding them isn't actually a violation of any policy or guideline. Editors, especially inexperienced editors, need to do their best. Sometimes their best is a bare URL. Misplaced Pages:Citing sources says that "what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed." If you don't personally WP:VOLUNTEER to be one of those "others", then that's 100% okay, but this is our standing offer to editors: Do your best to tell us what the source is, and we'll help. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and that means we help each other out.

(Also, the first diff isn't a bare URL. Perhaps you pasted the wrong diff there?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s fair… I understand if it’s not against policy, that’s just how things are - is there a way to get them to engage and respond to messages left on their talk page? I was under the assumption that WP:COMMUNICATION was a policy.

Also, where do we stand on the fake titles? Danners430 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fake titles are a bit complicated, because sometimes you see one headline in the news app, a different one on the website, and the title displayed on the webpage is different from the one displayed at the top of the tab/in the HTML. And that's assuming the website doesn't change the title. So sometimes what looks like a fake title isn't actually fake.

That said, these particular titles feel to me (subjectively, based on my own experience) like something that was just a simple description made up by an editor. Although one might be able to argue that they are what Misplaced Pages:Further reading describes as "brief notes about the sources" (which "may be helpful"), we don't usually encourage people to make up descriptions instead of pasting in a real page title. The page title is far more useful for combating link rot than a made-up description.

WP:COMMUNICATION is, as the tag says at the top of the page, an essay. But it's still a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What can be done then? Editors are constantly having to tidy up after this user, and they consistently ignore any and all attempts to communicate… how is this a user that’s participating constructively? Danners430 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Constantly tidying up after each other" is what it means to volunteer in a collaborative project. If this particular bit of tidying up irritates you, then leave it for someone else.

Of course it's frustrating when you think that a quick message would change their behavior into something more convenient. But sometimes I think that what we get is already the best people can realistically do. Someone who can't figure out how to talk to us (something that took you eight years? Your first edit was in September 2012, and your first edit to a Talk: page was in December 2020) is not necessarily someone who's going to be able to handle complex formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, and very much understood… it’s not necessarily annoying for me to make these edits to improve the cites, the annoyance is just the lack of communication. I do see your point about user ability though. Life goes on :) Danners430 (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98/Archive Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see the link… although that could just be my caffeine-lacking brain first thing in the morning! Danners430 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Chavurah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pages by a blocked user

Globally blocked user Special:Contributions/Mykytal (bodiadub's sockpuppet) has created many spam promo pages, which are eligible for deletion under G5 speedy deletion rule. Here are some of the latest pages:

Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group Daria Zarivna Viktor Andrukhiv Viktor Andrukhiv Andriy Smyrnov Yulia Yanina 2A02:810A:8E3F:FAA4:D45C:1A7E:10F2:80DD (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Get the bad ones with CSD I'd think, I'll start with these ones. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. This is clearly not wanted. @Bbb23, you seem to be connected to this. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

G5 only applies to articles created after the block, and only if there are no significant edits by other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Phrasia

• Phrasia (talk · contribs · logs)

User was given a 1RR restriction when unblocked a month ago at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive358#Unblock/unban request from Phrasia, and has restored the same content (a list of songs sourced to fansite ddrfreak.com) twice to Music of Dance Dance Revolution today. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• • Just to give my side of the situation, to my knowledge, the restriction was not breached. The restriction is geared towards edit-warring, which isn't the case. It is a list article, and the article is very much incomplete/missing content (there is even a template notice which I didn't even add mind you, which explains this). Dance Dance Revolution is a complex subject, (there are thousands of songs that were featured in the series, and that's just the Arcade/amusement side of it, not to mention console and home releases and other event editions such as Disney versions etc.) It seems fan sites, video game blogs, message boards aren't reliable sources. However, maybe an exception should be made, because a similar series Pump It Up has sources from music game fan sites. etc. I did one revert, and that is my only revert, and if my edit was reverted again, then so be it. I'm now looking into getting further help, so my contributions are included on that article, if there is still controversy/discrepancies (which I mentioned on the articles talk page). Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    This first edit could also be understood as a revert, as, even if some parts were technically slightly different, you brought back the vast majority of what the previous editor removed. This, along with your unambiguous revert bringing back the same content minutes later, could be seen as breaking the 1RR. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    Only technically different in one part: their first edits today added 12k of songs sourced to TV Tropes, YouTube and ddrfreak.com. When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added the same content back minus two reference tags (see a diff of their two edits). When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added it back again. Belbury (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    The fact that these long lists of information on other music game articles are sourced to fan sites, etc. does not indicate that we should continue to do so. I've asked folks over at WP:WikiProject Video games and gotten similar criticism for doing the same on different individual entries of Beatmania IIDX. Reconrabbit 13:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Phrasia is a net benefit to the project. Their editing since being unblocked has been riddled with problems. I'm concerned that even after years of editing Misplaced Pages they do not seem to grasp basic principles like verifiability and reliable sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User ShirtNShoesPls, Blatant Months-Long Disruptive Editing, Multiple BLP Violations, and Now Openly Vandalising Pages With Manufactured Quotes/Claims by Misrepresenting Citations

Bringing this here after advice received from admin.
ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Over the last few days/week or so I've come into repeated contact with the named user above. This emerged out of a report I made about their edit-warring on the article for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.
• They have a habit of creating very basic draft-level articles with little to no sourcing and abandoning them immediately after (some of these I've moved to draft) and making larger edits likewise with relatively poor sourcing for what's claimed.
• However this behaviour has now moved on to BLP articles, which raises the scale of the problems they cause.(new article:)(edits to Joe Biden article:)

While I don't believe much if any of what they've done is nefarious there seems to be major issues with their ability to usefully edit and understand policy, and therefore stronger action likely needs to be taken as a result.Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to make a new section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, added it in. Silly error on my part. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You're good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Update, 15/02/2024: After further consideration of the matter and further actions by the user I'm changing this report to being one of deliberate policy breaches and frankly WP:NOTHERE.
On the above cited article they've created for "Ageism against Joe Biden" they have repeatedly reinserted BLP violations, claiming the removal of this material is "vandalism" , .
They have since moved on to removing reliably sourced information claiming that it is instead WP:OR and BLP violations (almost seemingly parroting back why their own material has been removed to try and sound credible), or just removed sourced content based on absurd and obviously false reasoning..
They have also engaged in obvious use of talk pages to advertise their own article.

I see no potential for a change in this behaviour and therefore ask for swift action by an admin to resolve. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that user is not here after removing sourced content and engaging in disruptove editing. They also are logged in (i suspect) with an additional IP: @208.102.167.48 - idk if they understand the 3RR but if it is the same user then then they are avoiding it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if they're that IP, but they're certainly aware of the editing warring policy given they've been warned by several users on their talk page and have been blocked for it once, and every time they've been warned they've stubbornly refused to take the hint and insist they're right (WP:IDHT). Even at the block for edit warring I've diffed above they repeatedly insisted WP:ONUS suddenly applied to the removal of content rather than inclusion and seemingly invented "other editors" who agreed with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Further Update, 16/02/2024: Following discovery of what appears to be examples of manufacturing quotes from supposed cited sources and asking for advice from an admin I have put this issue in to the Vandalism noticeboard, leaving this here for now as it should probably still be archived. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Righty ho, now getting told at the vandalism noticeboard that it should be on this noticeboard. Anyway here were are, user manufacturing quotes to POV-push, namely inventing quotes from "medical experts" regarding the health of Joe Biden (), and in the United States article just going to town spreading false claims that the US deliberately committed a "campaign of extermination" that killed 100 million Native Americans (edits, investigation). Can an admin please step in and resolve this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See Note the deletions, eg first landing on the moon, etc. Let's look down the article to where they add " According to historian David Stannard in American Holocaust, this is the largest genocide in world history, and led to an estimated 100 million deaths",. You'd think that the US did that. given the new section heading and the sentence before that says "The campaigns of extermination prompted a long series of American Indian Wars west of the Mississippi River.". But American Holocaust (book) says " The book surveys the history of European colonization in the Americas, for approximately 400 years, from the first Spanish assaults in the Caribbean in the 1490s to the Wounded Knee Massacre in the 1890s--the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America have suffered dispossession, oppression and exploitation. During that time the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people.," Note that the article already said " The Columbian exchange was catastrophic for native populations. It is estimated that up to 95 percent of the indigenous populations in the Americas perished from infectious diseases during the years following European colonization;"

I'd argue that's deliberately misleading especially given other edits by him. Eg the addition of "Through its policies of settler colonialism and white supremacy," without mentioning that "Settler colonialism was especially prominent in the colonial empires of the European powers between the 16th and 20th centuries. The settling of Boers in South Africa, British, French, Portuguese and Spanish expansion in the Americas as well as the settlement of the Canary Islands by Castile are classical examples of settler colonialism."

Then there's "By 1900, rapid industrialization " to which was added "achieved through the exploitation of labor". When was any industrial revolution achieved without the exploitation of labor? I think that the edits in this diff are misleading and attacks. and violations of NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The worst thing is that none of his edits look to be supported by any source whatsoever, with them almost insidiously altering existing sourced statements radically to say something completely new and hope no one checks that the citation no longer supports the new claim. There's zero possibility that this is anything but deliberate at this point.

Also if you look at the edit warring notices on their talk page (of which they have several) and the edit-warring discussion I've linked near the top there's just a general pattern of behaviour where they'll seemingly just make stuff up and then when called out on it just full on deny anything they've done is wrong, in fact everyone else is the problem, and several supposed users supported them (though I've yet to find a single person support any of their edits). Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User resorting to insults

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

After creating an attack page which was speedily deleted, @Femzino Must Go is now trying to defame me, stating "Get off my d--k, b---h!" and threatening to ban me when I linked Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks to him. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's bad. Oh well, they got indefed by Stwalkerster for WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request not appeaing on list

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

YoloMc8562 has had an unblock request open for over a week, but is not listed at Category:Requests for unblock. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And responded to -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination as hispanic

OP blocked and talkpage access removed for disruption and gross incompetence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editor @Netherzone has made a discriminatory question to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnovoa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) FYI – Signed what appears to be an additional report made simultaneously with the one below. Remsense诉 03:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) No, that is in regards to a different user. Here is the questioning I am being asked by @Netherzone @Fjnovoa, based on your long messages here, I'm wondering, respectfully of course, about your English competency and ability to understand what is being said to you. May I please ask you why you have chosen to write these articles on English Misplaced Pages rather than on Spanish Misplaced Pages? Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC) My respose Because I only used Spanish until I was 14 years old, and was sent to a boarding school in Gainesville, GA (Riverside Military Academy) due to the civil war that was going on in El Salvador. My Spanish is basic, used mainly for my research. I have resided in the USA since 1978, and used English for the last 46 years of my life, as my primary language. My daughter undergrad is a BA in English and assists me reviewing my articles. I have an undergrad BBA in Finance from the University of Texas @ Arlington, if you doubt my English comprehension and competence.  Why am I having this line of questioning? I can assure you I am not using any machine translation, Wow! Fjnovoa (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The above is a copy/paste from User talk:Fjnovoa#WP languages and English comprehension (permalink) where Netherzone asked whether Fjnovoa's contributions would be better on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. That kind of suggestion is needed with some contributors from time to time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Being yell at Header adjusted to level 3 to be within preceding topic, also created by the same user. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Misplaced Pages. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) No, a single word like that in all-caps is for extra EMPHASIS, not yelling. Like that. Zaathras (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) There has been multiple actions that can be reviewed in the Draft:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera article. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Fjnovoa, you have provided no diffs or pages, and any hardly any context so that others may easily understand what has happened. Here is the complete interaction history between the two users. Remsense诉 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong With regards to your comment "zero evidence of passing WP:NWRITER" Mr. Pedro Núñez Martínez, (https://urukeditores.com/autores/pedro-nunez-martinez/) a writer, went to the Costa Rica National Library to search and research about the subject. There he met with the director Ms. Laura Rodríguez , who referred him to Ms. Xenia Fonseca Quirós. The latter provided the copy of the cover of the subject's book "El Alma de la America Latina", and probably the library (Biblioteca Nacional "Miguel Obregón Lizano")there has copies of the other two books, "Colombia Autógrafa" and "Album de Autógrafos Hispano-Americanos" or the National Library of Colombia. You are welcome to contact them directly for your verification process. These are the three published books that support the evidece that the subject was a writer. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) You are STILL completely miss-understanding how Misplaced Pages works, we don't require verification or evidence as such and we certainly don't need any emails please remove them, we requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Misplaced Pages. Please do not attack me personally and let's stay focus on the article and the subject. In the recent past, I have expressed my exception to your subjective message labeling the article “family history project” and I stayed focused on my COI disclosure. I did not appreciate you erasing all my edits, regarding the subject's daughter’s donations when I was working to mitigate recommendations made by @Netherzone. I have apologized to you directly, for the minute-long mistaken edit I made to maintenance notes, in my attempt to produce a clean pdf copy for review support from history and writer academia scholars. And now your new response yelling and attacking me for my understanding level. Per your request, now I have removed the email addresses provided for additional verification of the subject’s three published books: "Colombia Autógrafa", "Album de Autógrafos Hispano-Americanos" and "The Soul of Latin America". Moreover, I have provided secondary citations and reliable sources regarding the subject published books with references #10, #11, #12, #13 and #14, which stands in juxtaposition to your message stating “zero evidence of passing WP:WRITER” Kindly and respectfully, it is my personal opinion as a contributor, that perhaps Misplaced Pages would be better served if you recused yourself from any further reviewing, if you have developed a bias against me and I am not feeling the impartiality coming from you and allow other fresh eyes to continue the review process, with regards to the subject's writer qualifications. There is an abysmal difference in the spirit and style of the constructive and guidance messages received from @Star Mississippi and @Netherzone in contrast to yours. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This report has absolutely no substance. A WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted, given that Fjnovoa appears to be a single-purpose account (and they have already been blocked on eswiki for this). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) I have been blocked unjustifiably, and have requested review and a user deletes my requests to keep me blocked. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Categorically, vehemently, and unequivocally, this is not a single-purpose account. 5 of my articles have been published and this is the six. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This appears to concern Draft talk:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera#zero evidence of passing WP:NWRITER. @Fjnovoa: You are wrong—the use of "STILL" was for emphasis and Theroadislong was merely trying to help by explaining basic procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. COI and CIR issues combined with unwarranted belligerence against editors who put a nontrivial amount of work into trying to help them. And it seems that they were already blocked for much the same on es.wiki, from their block log there: Cuenta con propósito particular: Lleva más de 10 años tratando de insertar a sus ancestros, aunque sean relevantes, asume una pertenencia falsa a los artículos (Single purpose account: Has spent more than 10 years trying to insert their ancestors, even when relevant they assume a false degree of importance to the articles). signed, Rosguill 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Unblock request declined and TPA removed. This was never going to stop, based on previous interactions across multiple wikis. This can probably be closed as resolved. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:山登 太郎

• 山登 太郎 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user seems to be causing some problems with articles about paleontology.

• Being single purpose account: All of the their edits are mostly about Satoshi Utsunomiya, a Japanese science writer and paleontologist. Satsuma-utsunomiya-ryu, Satsumayokuryu and Draft:Satsumamukashiumigame are all his discoveries. It looks like this is just promoting him.
• Machine (AI-using?) translation: Additionally, these pages are all machine translations of Japanese Misplaced Pages pages by the same user, probably using a GPT-type service. This results in disjointed content and mistranslations of researchers' names. (For example, Yasuhisa Nakajima is mistranslated as "Yasutoshi" or "Hoju")
• Reverting articles: Nevertheless, this user seems to have a tendency to revert to his version when his page is edited. Similar behavior was seen on the Japanese version of Misplaced Pages.
• Copyright violation: This user has uploaded an image that copyright is fairly unclear. When I removed the image from the page, the user claimed that he owned the copyright to the image. They do not wanted to provide any proof of that. At least this user doesn't seem to understand the guidelines for uploading images to Commons.
• In the Japanese version of Misplaced Pages, they caused problems such as deleting page maintenance templates, altering/removing other user's comments, and posting articles in other languages ​​to Japanese Misplaced Pages.

For the above reasons, I believe that some treatment should be taken against this user. Some of the articles created by this user seem to be noteworthy, but even if I try to improve the page, this user will revert it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I myself take sanctions such as blocks seriously, but there is no crime in the article. 山登 太郎 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My edits are always reverted in List of X-Men members page.

My username is @Ringardiumleviossa and I am here to seek advice and do complaint regarding an incident. I have been trying to edit List of X-Men members page from last week but one @hotwiki keeps reverting it. I gave all the reasons and I even backed off when I was informed of the certain rules. I "indirectly" got to know that every single of my edits need a refences or talk discussion even if it is a grammatical correction edit (while others don't). And I was made to talk in talk page for even editing a grammatical mistake. I was made to ask to consensus in the talk page for my reverted edit, where mostly this editor decides what is going to be in the page and what not. And whenever I mentioned them, they started calling that I am personally attacking them, by simply mentioning what is happening? Please see/read this Captain Krakoa and Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members. These talks are effecting negatively to me as because of that, I left editing for a day but now I am on the verge of leaving Misplaced Pages. I can't even think enough what to write in this report because it is too much, I can't even think what is right and wrong while contributing in Misplaced Pages pages. I need an administrator for HELP regarding this incident and take some action whether on me or on that editor on the basis of rules and regulation only or resolve this issue. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you've encountered ownership of Marvel/DC-related pages? It's definitely a thing... welcome to Misplaced Pages. My sympathies. It's definitely an issue on pop culture pages, and comics pages seem to be the worst. I've recently been told that the WP:MOS instructions on words and phrases to avoid doesn't apply to superhero TV show pages. /shrug. Not an admin, so I'll wait and see what advice you get. Bastun 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You were reverted simply because of unreferenced edits. You made a dozen of edits in that article without leaving a reference in the article. The article is already tagged for needing reliable sources in the first place. Then when Ringardiumleviossa was asked to provide a reference - their immediate response was "look up the Misplaced Pages article of those articles". How is that complying to Misplaced Pages rules about posting reliables. Then questioned me in the talk page of the article, if they should always add references whenever they make an edit (such as adding "nicknames"). Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what happened, that is why I added the talk pages in my report. I can't do this anymore, not with you (sorry). After this article, I am going to retire from Misplaced Pages. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also if you check Talk:List of X-Men members, I took my time and discuss things to Ringardiumleviossa as civil I could do. The user was throwing personal digs whenever I had an disagreement with their edits, stating that I wasn't letting them edit the article which isn't true. There was also a time in the talk page when the editor, called me bias, simply because of the content posted in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because every edits of mine were reverted, even the ones done separately, even grammatical corrections, even reliable sources were not accepted. I kindly request administrator to check the talks and resolve this situation and let's not get this discussion too long and wait. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like inform that a lot from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal in the talk page (Talk:List of X-Men members) were implemented in the article (List of X-Men members in the past few days, such as adding nicknames to characters, making sub sections, Misplaced Pages links to comic book titles, etc. So its not true, that the user's changes were simply reverted and discarded. I personally took my time to read the editors' long proposal in the talkpage. Out of all the members that were pinged by the editor, I was one of the only two editors who responded to the editor's proposal. The things I agreed with, were discussed and later implemented in that article. When Ringardiumleviossa asked me directly (in the talkpage of List of X-Men members) to remove certain things (such removing characters), I communicated back and removed those certain things per the editor's request in the talkpage. So its not true that the editor's edits were just simply reverted. A lot of recent changes that remain in the article, came from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal in the talkpage, which went to extensive discussion between me and that editor. Hotwiki (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hotwiki only added names and linked pages because another editor responded positively to that proposal. You were against it before. For example, just like you are against and revert every update on the current X-Men lineup like when I did bold face on Polaris (while other editors' edited reverts can be seen in the history). I know when to back off but you are controlling this like it is your own. I am going to semi-retire now so I won't be able to answer anymore for a day or two. Administrator also check the references provided above mentioned talks and once again I request @Hotwiki to not get this discussion long like we did in the previous ones. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I also added sub sections per your proposal in the talk page. You've directly asked me in the talk page, to remove certain characters in the article, which I did right after you gave me a reference which I asked. So I was cooperating with you in that article. You are painting me as if all of your contributions in that talk page/article was ignored/reverted which is false. Your edits today were reverted simply because they were unreferenced, and I immediately brought it up in the talk page to resolve. Yet you still haven't provided any references to back up those changes. Hotwiki (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I just want to point out before this is closed/archived, that @Hotwiki had left another reply here, but it got deleted ~4 minutes later(diff) when Ringardiumleviossa edited this reply. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:38D2:9DB2:69B3:BEE3 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've restored the comment. Schazjmd (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this is an content dispute, and this is an area that focuses on behavior not arbitrating what content is preferable. While there can be a lot of problems with making significant changes on an article with a lot of vested contributors, you also proposed a huge list of things and gave very little time for a discussion, so I can understand editors like @Hotwiki getting annoyed. And some of the changes have problems, like introducing a whole bunch of MOS:QUOTENAME awkwardness into the mix. Not all the arguments that you've made have been helpful, either; you got testy very quickly about being asked for sources, for example, and did not always react well to pushback. It's not helpful in a conversation to in multiple places directly or indirectly declare that the discussion and the page aren't worth your time.

I know you're making a good faith effort to improve this page, but it would be helpful to take the temeprature down a notch. There are no deadlines here and you proposed a lot of massive changes on a mature, stable page. I would suggest taking a break from this area, and if you're still interested in improving the page, focus on a smaller number of well-sourced edits, rather than a wholesale restructuring that doesn't have support. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Ringardiumleviossa blocked as a sock puppet of Nekivik (talk · contribs). It's kind of obvious from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa that Nekivik decided to create a sock to double-vote in AfDs and "win" content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of disambiguation pages

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: has been engaged in the mass "drive-by" tagging of disambiguation pages. I was prepared to accept this as in good faith, but recent events indicate that it is not, and the editor is not listening to advice. As context, in November 2023 the editor tagged hundreds of pages that he had found with a report, tagging them {{One other topic}}: there are 687 left in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic from November 2023. This is all very well but was done indiscriminately without regard to what a better alternative might be. Most of my editing (hundreds of edits) in Dec 23/Jan 24 has been going through these pages and cleaning up dozens of these pages and removing the tags. I'd say about 75% were tagged legitimately as pages that could be deleted, the others should have been improved, not tagged. I reverted only two cases, discussed at User talk:NmWTfs85lXusaybq#Edit reverts, a discussion I decided to walk away from. So far so good, and not actually disruptive.

The editor then set about redirecting hundreds of disambiguation pages that contain two entries, but one of which is a redlink. This has created dozens of problems and at my rate of progress it will take months to resolve. @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse: notified me of a list of such edits: . Among the issues are:

• The blanking and redirect of WP:SIAs and {{shipindex}} pages are incorrect because these pages are not disambiguation pages. I have not had time to go through them, but from the contributions above, those that involve the names of ships are wrong and need to be reverted. A selection: , , . All of this is disruptive and will take time to manually revert if that is appropriate.
• The blanking and redirect of pages "Foo" citing WP:PRIMARYRED has left behind dozens of cases where there were incoming redirects of the form "Foo (disambiguation)". Dozens of the entries at the report here here are caused by NmWTfs85lXusaybq redirecting a page but not tagging the incoming redirect as WP:G14. Not in itself disruptive, but deleting my note on their Talk page here indicates bad faith.
• In many cases where a page had two entries, one blue link and one redlink, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has blanked and redirected to the blue link. This doesn't necessarily improve the encyclopedia because it deletes entries which with some improvement are legitimate. In many of these case I have reverted, and instead improved the page by finding a blue link to match the redlink. One egregious case is Tullycarnan. It is blanked and redirected here to Tullycarnan (Ardglass). This in itself is wrong because if there were only one Tullycarnan, Tullycarnan (Ardglass) should have been moved to "Tullycarnan". It's also wrong because the associated incoming redirect Tullycarnan (disambiguation) was not tagged G14, and so a bot erroneously redtargeted it to Tullycarnan (Ardglass). I come along, revert the blank and redirect, and improve the page here by finding a blue link to accompany the redlink. My efforts are rewarded by a revert . There might be a primary topic, but the situation is now doubly wrong: Tullycarnan (Ardglass) is at the wrong title, and there is no hatnote or indication of the existence of "Tullycarnan (Witter), a townland in Witter (civil parish) in County Down, Northern Ireland". My edits to other pages, which I consider improve pages rather than blanking and redirecting them, have been reverted: , , , , , , , , , ,

A third party may consider, as I do, that these latest reverts are ill-considered and consistent with an attitude of mass-tagging without properly thinking through and following up actions.

All of this seems like gnomery, and I've learned how to do it properly over many years. I have tried discussing with NmWTfs85lXusaybq but twice my Talk page comments have been blanked. I am now of the opinion that they won't listen to me and, on the whole, this editor's mass tagging of pages is not making the encyclopedia better.

Perhaps I should try harder to communicate, but I prefer to spend my time editing rather than dramatising, and this editor isn't listening. What would I like? An independent review of those latest edit reverts, and for this editor to slow down, stop mass tagging, and instead apply a tag only where it makes the encyclopedia better and the page cannot be otherwise improved.

(I'm going to stop editing for a few days and quietly do something else instead, so please ping me, but note I'm taking a break.) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have time today to get too deep into this, but on the surface, this looks like a problem, erasing a lot of db pages without discussion, and doing it at a pretty fast rate. Too fast to be manual, and I'm not sure what tools they are authorized to use. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Although I have tried to discussed with Shhhnotsoloud here, but the response only states that they intentionally refused to "get the point": It doesn't say that, and it doesn't mean that. It just says there's no agreement. You don't agree with me. That doesn't mean you can delete my work. Therefore, I can't see this as in good faith any more.
• The issue of mass blanking and redirect of SIAs has already been discussed, please see these archives: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_74#SIA_pages_-_G14_deletion and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_86#Was_there_an_unintended_change_in_scope_of_G14?. I can't believe most of edits are still there but I'm willing to revert them myself.
• The discussion of involved automated edits was Misplaced Pages:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully_automated_edits_without_BRFA_-_Request_for_assistance.
• As for the primary topic of WP:2DAB, there's an argument against WP:NOPRIMARY that was used by Bastun on Stardew and was also supported by Pppery: Disambiguation pages should only exist where we have articles on all of the entries. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I’m meant to be on wikibreak right now due to my mental health so I can’t get too deep into this, but for reference for admins reading this thread, see also a section I opened at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Noticeboard about this editor - Special:Permalink/1206975100#Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance (Permalink is to the revision of the page before the section was automatically archived). Given I opened that thread, I consider myself an involved editor with regards to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, but I really think something needs to be done here. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have self-reverted WP:BLAR of SIAs as per

  the update on WP:G14. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• As I'm mentioned above, note my involvement on Stardew was part of New Pages Patrol, where it had showed up. IIRC, it had previously been (correctly, in my opinion) a redirect to Stardew Valley, and was turned into a disambiguation page to that article and to a relatively obscure album containing a non-notable song by the name of Stardew (so no link to anything called Stardew). I think I linked to WP:NOPRIMARY in error, and should have linked to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Bastun 12:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bastun: I reverted those WP:2DABs with only one extant article to a primary redirect per your note. If this looks good to you, I may consider swapping them back to their base name and cleaning up the related hatnotes per Shhhnotsoloud's request. However, according to the comments they left on my talk page, they tried to force me to do that without a firm consensus which is against the guideline WP:PAGEMOVER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not interested a bit in technical stuff and in "Wiki trials", but NmWTfs85lXusaybq has edited in a haughty manner that has unnecessarily created lots of waste of time for me among several fellow editors. I mean this move here - no explanation, no ping, no arguments. N.B.: I did of course offer an explanation in the edit summary for my own move when I made it, and editor Aintabli, who is very familiar with the topic and the region, has went along and just added parantheses ("Horon dance" becoming "Horon (dance)"). NmW... then went on to practically set the stage for the removal of Horon (disambiguation) by decreeing here the dance to be the primary topic - again: no ping, no arguments, just stating it's a "cleanup per MOS:DAB" - and then slapping a "one other topic" tag on it. It's like in the joke with the cowboy who shoots everybody at a wedding and then asks the bride: "All by yourself, pretty lady?" There is imho NO self-evident reason why a deity whose name shows up in the Bible should be a lesser topic than a dance from northern Turkey, but that can be discussed, of course if allowed by NmW. I managed to fix it, but it was a clear waste of time better used elsewhere, as is this whole message here. To me it looks like NmW is on an unrestrained crusade, my way or the highway, focused on one narrow aspect, w/o accepting the basic superior principle of "making Wiki better", nor of discussing rather than making all by himself final pronouncements based on little or nothing. Arminden (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Are you trying to complain about everything here? It's Amakuru who reverted undiscussed change of primary topic on Horon made by Aintabli (see Special:History/Horon (dance) after the swap). Thus, I have to swap Horon (dance) back to the base name per WP:MISPLACED. As for the dab, I didn't make any revert. Have Amakuru ever left you a ping? If this dab is so important to you, just add it to your watchlist instead. In addition, Shhhnotsoloud are complaining for not cleaning up the pages related with Tullycarnan but you're trying to do so for cleaning up the pages related with Horon. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I don't want to comment on anything related to behavior but just wanted to correct something. That article was actually titled "Horon (dance)" for quite some time until "I" requested its renaming to "Horon" at WP:RMT in December last year. A few days ago (exactly 2 months later), Arminden readded "dance" (the disambiguator), because Hauron is commonly spelled as "Horon", which I was initially unaware of. And then, I have readded the parentheses. Overall, this was kind of a revert of the initial move I requested back in December which removed the disambiguator. There wasn't a thorough discussion about the primary topic. I hope this clarifies the possible misunderstanding at least partially. Aintabli (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Aintabli: Should you make an RMT requested that the disambiguator "(dance)" be added back? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  It will probably be moved to the contested requests section given that it has been moved for multiple times and there is an apparent dispute here. I suggest that a move discussion is started at the article's talk page to save us time as it will be the inevitable outcome of RMT. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• NmWTfs85lXusaybq, those discussions weren't exactly widely attended, so they are not at all convincing that this is with consensus. I'm not taking a side on whether or not they should have been made, I'm just saying there is cause for alarm here. That doesn't address one concern I have, which is the speed of which you are making changes. What tools are you using? I asked this before, but you didn't say. And if you ARE making edits against consensus, this would be a worse problem, as you are doing it at breakneck speed. You have racked up a lot of edits in the short time that you have been at Misplaced Pages, which makes it very time consuming to check your activities. Dennis Brown 2¢ 23:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the tool WP:PAWS I used (but not using any more), both a smart kitten and I have already cited the discussion Misplaced Pages:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully_automated_edits_without_BRFA_-_Request_for_assistance (later unarchived). If you want to get a little deeper into this, you can go through that thread and raise any further issues there. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Yamanhunyaar persistently making disruptive edits

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

• User:Yamanhunyaar has been making persistent disruptive edits to the Gondi people page, as can be seen in its history: . This user has been warned more than once, to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked índefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. See also their hoax userpage which has several times been deleted, and also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Queen Hirai Atram, an article created by Yamanhunyaar and now deleted as a source-free hoax (full transparency: deleted by me). And various warnings on the user's page. Bishonen | tålk 01:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC).

User: DaDefeender constantly making disruptive edits on the Asim Munir page.

• DaDefeender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asim Munir (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@DaDefeender has been making multiple disruptive edits on the Asim Munir (general) page over a series of weeks. He has been warned and notified several times, and attempts have been made to communicate with him on the talkpage productively, but to no avail. Multiple other users have also taken note and asked him for his reasoning which is often the same repetitive argument of removing bias despite the information he’s removing containing verifiable sources.

Examples of his disruptive editing:

VirtualVagabond (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Having made one revert of a removal by another editor on that page recently, I should probably not act on this myself, but it is clear that DaDefeender is edit warring on the page and is ignoring invitations to discussion. The edit summary name correction when removing multiple sections of cited information is also a likely indication that further action is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 13:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for edit warring. Only 24 hours for now, but was tempted to also block from that page. Lets see where this goes as they have at least found their keyboard based on edit summaries, even if they haven't understood what reliable sources means and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Trolling of various articles by HelperHelper1 after last warning

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

HelperHelper1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (both of those after final warning), almost all of their contributions have been reverted and are about 21st-century politics, NPOV violations , clearly NOTHERE and probably a troll. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi; concerning edits and suspected meatpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPs seems to be WP:NOTHERE

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

These IPs, who seem to be associated with each other, struggle with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. They also edit war frequently, and throw around baseless accusations.

2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0

107.10.129.126

-- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A previous discussion at Ritchie333's usertalk page: User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#Help! may be relevant to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(I've assuming the two IPs are the same editor given the same ISP and geolocation, which can be fine, IPs change.) On the plus side, on both of the current articles (Blue discharge and Shenna Bellows) they appear to have stopped at three reverts. On the other side, I'll share a few diffs that involved me (may be some overlap from the original report). I believe I had reverted a single edit of theirs on Blue discharge, with the edit summary of seems well cited in body (also use T:CN to tag inline in future) diff, and they responded on my talk page with Edit war. You vandal. diff. After they attacked another editor on their talk page (lol you dorks are too funny diff and a new section named Being a fake republican said doesn't help. diff) I decided to issue a warning and after I shared diffs with them upon request, they responded with You are a vandal. That isn't an attack. It is a matter of fact statement. It would be an attack if it were untrue, but you are vandalizing my talk page right now. You don't seek to make wikipedia a better place, you don't follow policy, you vandalize and deceive. diff. I want to WP:AGF but honestly I nearly reported them to AIV or ANEW when the bulk of this was happening. Skynxnex (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more diffs: IP 2603:6011 blanked the ANI notice at their usertalk at 01:27, 16 February 2024 , reverted at the Shenna Bellows article at 01:29, 16 February 2024 (previous reverts were at 17:43, 15 February 2024 , 05:53, 15 February 2024 , 05:38, 15 February 2024 ) and then commented at IP 107.10.129.126's usertalk at 01:30, 16 February 2024 lol, nice vague threat. beneath the ANI notice.Also, I posted a request at RFPP based on the persistent disruptive editing by various IPs over the past month at the Bellows article; the page is semi-protected for 1 month and 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 is blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. Beccaynr (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NorthCheam

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

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

This user has been vandalising, inserting POV, and adding unsourced content across several articles, despite warnings to stop.

I first noticed when they vandalised the article for the founder of Parkrun, Paul Sinton-Hewitt, by changing his name to Andrew Tate. They then left an edit summary saying "bring back the Parkrun statistics". For context, Parkrun has recently removed some statistics from their website, which this user is clearly agitated about.

Following this, they then introduced unsourced POV on ] by stating that Parkrun had removed the statistics "without consulting participants" and that the move was "widely condemned", all without a source.

A discussion ensued on the Parkrun talk page about the suitability of mentioning a petition about the issue. NorthCheam engaged in the discussion, but prosecuted their opinion in the edit summaries of their replies, and when editing the main article as well. In one diff, they left the edit summary The petition now up to 15000. Bring back the stats parkrun. God bless parkrun volunteers and participants. Peace and love. When replying on the talk page, they replied with My aim is not to vanadlize but to put in the (well referenced) major story., but left as the edit summary Clarification. Bring Back the Stats. Parkrun HQ (salaried team) did it without consulting event directors or runner on the proposed changes. Claimed it was for inclusion reasons even though no one complained about the statistics according to Paul Sinton Hewitt. This is a disconnect between saying they are only acting to put in notable content, but then clearly prosecuting their own POV in edit summaries.

NorthCheam has also left unsourced inappropriate POV on other articles. On the A219 road, in this diff, they added text about the speed limit, saying it was "a ridiculously low 20 mph (after being 40 15 years ago),.

Most recently, they disruptively edited Andrew Tate, changing "criticism" to "strong praise" in the lead. They then made it even worse, changing their own edit to "strong praise from an enormously wide array of advocacy groups, parents, teachers and world leaders.".

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. GraziePrego (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked NorthCheam as not here to build an encyclopedia. Deliberate and malicious vandalism of a biography of a living person is unacceptable, as is axe grinding and POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for 180.28.59.165

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lightburst at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

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

I feel like this needs no introduction since it's been the talk of the town, but Lightburst's conduct at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sdkb has been bad, to say the least. From threatening to oppose for tampering with the vote to actually doing it, to saying Amanda's action of striking the mother of all aspersions was out of process, I think it's beyond unacceptable. Thus, I propose a topic ban on requests for adminship for Lightburst, which has been a long time coming since weird RfA conduct has happened at multiple RfAs (and there was one on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2 that I can't access because it was oversighted), only culminating in this "protest vote" today. LilianaUwU 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Lightburst RfA TBAN)

• Support as proposer. LilianaUwU 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Upon reading the diffs and thread, I'm seeing what LilianaUwU means about disruptive behavior. The behavior seems contrary to the purposes of the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Tampering with votes is disruptive (senseless votes should be ignored, not removed). If all involved simply ignored the lone oppose vote, there would have been no drama in the first place. Pavlor (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lightburst's conduct has been less than ideal and I hope they take heed of this before sanctions become inevitable. But casting unpopular !votes is not in itself disruptive. I believe that WP:Thank you for your vote should be standard practice and that violating it is far more disruptive than protesting its violation. Oppose-badgering is the most disruptive thing that happens in a typical RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support The RfA vote in question was not based on sincere concerns about the actual candidate's fitness to serve, but was rather a pointy protest vote that functioned only to get people further riled up. It also served to draw more attention to an evidence free (so far) personal attack on the candidate, giving the nasty aspersions undeserved credibility. That vote was either trolling or the functional equivalent of trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that this conduct has been less than ideal, but c'mon, folks: RfA has been broken for twenty years, and people have been allowed to get away with far more disruptive and specious voting over long periods of time (Kurt Weber, anyone?). Beyond that, stop and think here: are we really analyzing an editor's voting record to ensure they're doing so for the "right" reasons, and place restrictions on them if we don't like what they have to say? Ravenswing 08:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I see this similar to Thebiguglyalien and Ravenswing. Disagreeing with an admins/bureaucrats decision isn't against policy. And their vote is just 1 out of 250. If you want to warn them for tampering with the vote and for the language they used, sure. But their votes are fine. Nobody (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - over-reaction or what? This is an attempt to police !voting and as such is unpalatable. Ingratis (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the behaviour is disruptive but did not brake the system. A good troutingwhaling will do to. The Banner talk 10:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His right to be point-y, having a less-than-stellar rationale is hardly grounds for a TBAN. AryKun (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if anyone should/have been sanctioned, it's Homeostasis07 who made the original unfounded allegation of one of the worst thoingbs an editor can do, and then lied about having evidence. For various reasons (mainly due to only a minority of crats having the resolve to do anything about it, while others seemingly believe either that was acceptable behaviour or that it's not their job (!!!)), Homeostasis07 has, of yet, received no sanction at all and yet created the drama in the first place. So those who posted because of it can hardly receive a greater sanction, whatever they may/may not have done in the past. ——Serial 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose everyone made their Point there. Let's move on. Star Mississippi 14:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I really couldn't care if they threaten to move to oppose: there are already over 225 supports. One oppose does not matter, I would need to see a lot more than that to have a TBAN. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose but agree with Serial that Homeostasis should have received a sanction, and that the ability to make such accusations without evidence or consequences is one of the reason why RfAs are the hellscape they are today. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, "even more votes must be removed/prevented" is the wrong lesson to take from this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the need for sanctions here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floquenbeam. The Night Watch (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above. It's a slippery slope. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The posting of voting rationales in the support or oppose sections should be banned, but for everyone, not just for individual editors. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Lightburst has been vocal about (known) issues with the RfA process, and also been concerned about striking of votes. (In the latest example, Amanda could have struck the aspersions, warned the editor, and left the actual vote. And we wouldn't have had this blow up quite so much). I see no need for a ban. ResonantDis_tortion 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hardly TBAN-worthy. Suggest that this be withdrawn. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

58.176.1.159

58.176.1.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Nationalist POV pushing IP, already warned 13 times on the talk page. Half of the edits have been reverted. Edits consist of asserting Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (#1, #2, #3), over Hong Kong; removing sourced material related to 2019 Hong Kong protests (link); and sometimes just really obvious POV pushing (the protest's goal is that "China fall completely into the abyss", adding scare quote to pro-democracy camp) or adding questionable or conspiratorial claims (#1, #2, #3). Probably not here to build an encyclopedia. NM 07:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Northern Moonlight. All the diffs you have provided are from the first half of 2023, and this is an IP we are talking about. Please refile your complaint if you perceive there is *recent* disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ed, for what it's worth, the IP has already edited disruptively several times this month, and I highly suspect that this will be a continued pattern into the future. They come once every few months to sneakily push a non-neutral POV, then disappear, etc. I have taken the liberty of reporting them to WP:AIV for more immediate intervention. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Supporting an indef ban until this user can demonstrate neutrality (unless community consensus isn't welcomed/necessary, in which case, I can remove this comment). — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @That Coptic Guy, IP users are usually not indefinitely blocked. See WP:IPBLOCKLENGTH. —asparagusus (interaction) 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see, thank you! Well some sort of block is nonetheless needed here I would think. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Stale. I'm wary of blocking due to collateral. But feel free to relist if and/or when recent violations occur. Which looking at the nature of these, will almost certainly amount to sanctions of considerable severity. El_C 08:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

user:Rimonslamaa22

User @Rimonslamaa22 has been undoing my edits on Shams al-Baroudi without providing sources to back up his changes. Unlike me

Instead of addressing the issue on talk page, He resorted to personally attacking me by calling me a refugee (cuz I'm Syrian)

Special:diff/1208004397 Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA. What a bother/ I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: yeah, that attack was over the top. I realize they are very new, but they'd need to provide meaningful assurances if they are to regain their editing privileges. HTH. El_C 07:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LingoSouthAsia's behaviour on 2024 Pakistani general election

LingoSouthAsia (talk · contribs) has been persistently making problematic edits on the 2024 Pakistani general election page, despite warnings on his talk page which he repeatedly ignored and deleted. He is continuously deleting properly sourced content using invalid reasons like copyvio, commentary while adding his own commentary to the page.

For instance, today LingoSouthAsia removed sourced material about rigging in the election with the edit summary "Copyrights issue" despite there being no evidence of copyright violation. When Discospinster (talk · contribs) reverted his edit, LingoSouthAsia restored it again with edit summary like "WP is not a news paper". LingoSouthAsia then added a chunk of OR without citing any reliable independent source which also include his personal commentary.

Similarly yesterday, LingoSouthAsia repeatedly added and added then again the same personal commentary which was later removed but instead of listening, he opted to add it again today.

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Pinging Borgenland who may also have something to say how LingoSouthAsia's use misleading edit summaries to remove sourced content. --Saqib (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Despite the filing of this report, LingoSouthAsia persists in removing sourced content and adding OR. --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In just few days this is second time this politically active PTI supporter Saqib is here on Admin notice Board. Admin may consider following facts 1. All changes in LEADE has been explained on Talk page still six times he has approached my Talk page to warn me and avoid any usefull discussion on relavant articles talk page. I am feeling harrased and has repeatedly requested him to not intimidate me on my talk page and discuss in a positive manner on the relevant article's Talk page. LEADE has been balanced by me and after changes it covers everything, First detailed electoral process, Second results national as well provincial, Third controversies (Allegations of rigging) and Last Govt formation . Over emphasis of one point agenda has been nuetralized, I mean it was like an official political news paper page with no election information but rigging allegation with words like most rigged election in the History of Pakistan This is subjective commentary. History is compared on WP article ? I request Topic ban on Saqib. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My edits are always based on reliable sources. I recommend retracting your accusations that I am a politically active PTI supporter, which I perceive as a personal attack. And do not forget you are already partial blocked (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#LingoSouthAsia) for making false claims in talk page discussions by Black Kite, and for harassment by Bishonen. --Saqib (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we use a punishment to repunish ? Yes I have been punished with edit ban on a single WP page Saraiki language but please remeber I declared before the ban that I will not edit that page in future and positively accepted the punishment. This amounts to good behaviour not any weekness which user Saqib wants to expolit here. Please stay with current topic. All Saqib's edits on PAKISTAN GENERAL ELECTION 2024 are example of the fact that he want to use this article as newspaper by labelling elections with subjective wordings like most rigged election in the History of Pakistan. I have not removed rigging stuff which is 70% of the article thanks to Saqib's continious agenda driven editing. I would request Admin to visit that article history and article content. It looks like a rigging PTI rhetoric newspaper which termed Supreme court justice as controvertial showing biaseness and non nuetral point of view. Then check my edits. Saqib also removed four sources of recent surveys by top Pakistani surveyors Gallup Pakistan, IPOR and IRAS just because they pionted out PMLN lead in Punjab province. I accepted it with patience but now I am surprised and feel that Saqib is not here to improve WP with nuetrality but one sided wishfull editing. A topic ban on Saqib is requested. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yap, yap, yap. You are not proving anything here except that you are good at making false assumptions against other editors that disagree with you. Also: I am surprised and feel that Saqib is not here to improve WP with nuetrality but one sided wishfull editing. Surely you meant yourself in that statement? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 15:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry editing without logging. I am Lingo south asia. Corvette had I been such then would have left no traces of rigging allegations on Leade. Saqib is all about rigging chery picking. Hope you check edit history and my talk page efforts before giving your valuable statement here. 116.71.187.210 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed blocking of User:Ілля_Криворучко

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

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

On their talk page, – there is a pattern of articles being moved to the draft space among other disruptive work. They were also warned for potential blocking due to being engaged in an edit war. Recently, I moved their article to the draftspace as it had no content. There is a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue, so I'm proposing a temporary block. TLA (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a proper edits to the draft. Thanks for your redirect to draft and recommendations. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For Draft:Inna Makhno and Draft:Alina Chaplenko, both were moved while @Ілля Криворучко was actively working on them and before the recommended hour, per NPP guidelines. Inna Makhno was created at 11:11 with ongoing edits until 11:19 and moved at 11:21. They immediately recreated Inna Makhno which is a fully formed article (created 11:22, editing until 11:56). Alina Chaplenko was created at 9:27 with ongoing edits until 9:35 and moved at 9:37 so it appears reviewers are not giving enough time to develop the articles before moving them. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the user being reported has racked up an astonishing 5000+ edits since November of last year. I believe he is editing in good faith and is working on an area that doesn't get much love. The issues with his editing perhaps stem from the sheer volume of contributions - maybe rather than a temporary block (which I don't see helping and risks alienating a potentially valuable contributor) he could be instructed to go through WP:AFC for a few months? That should slow him down a bit and help him polish his editing style while not preventing him from contributing. Ostalgia (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a couple suggestions on their talk page but I don't think any restrictions are warranted at the time. They have created 43 articles and only two so far have been deleted, one was at their request (Yevgen Koptyelov). The other, Yaroslav Lavreniuk, was deleted 5 minutes after creation for being blank but subsequently successfully recreated. They did a have stumble around the January 28th time frame for edit warring and couple other issues but nothing since that time. From what I can tell, they do act on feedback. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a new page patrol, didn't realize that it is recommended to wait an hour before "patrolling". They have good contributions, yes (though a good chunk of it stems from publishing every edit), It was completely blank, though, and doesn't that still warrants some kind of a recommendation to incubate articles in the draftspace, at minimum? In creation template would also work. Thanks all. TLA (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are not an NPP reviewer, I suggest reading WP:New pages patrol to ensure your actions are within general standards. The moves to draft and the deletion were not in-line with those standards. Outside of egregious violations, like an attack page meeting G10, editors should be given an hour to develop a new article. So no, there is no supported action to take and I suggest you withdraw your complaint. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been a learning experience, for sure. But @S0091, I believe there still should be some kind of instruction to the user as @Ostalgia pointed out as well. Unsourced, blank, among other issue BLPs aren't too great. TLA (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla as I stated above I did leave a note on their talk page with a couple suggestions but to be clear, they are not nor should be required to follow them just like any other editor is not. Experienced/autopatrolled editors start articles directly in article space regularly with no sources or maybe just one source. It's not a big deal if they continue to develop the article within a short period of time. Take a look at WP:A7 for example, which states as long as there is a credible claim to significance even with no sources it cannot be speedily deleted, including BLPs. The lesson to take from this is give an editor at least an hour. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Ah, I see the talk page message. Thank you for that. Really strongly suggest @Ілля_Криворучко to consider working on a draft, as I believe other editors/"patrollers" will also have concerns. TLA (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You got the wrong message. TLA. Ілля Криворучко has done nothing wrong. You were incorrect with your draftication along with your other assumptions. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Guidelines at WP:BLPPROD came into my mind, but the article looked promising, so that's why I did the draftification so Ілля_Криворучко could work on it before it's in the mainspace. TLA (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Harassment by Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is harassing me; I have twice requested Skyerise stop writing on my user talk page (diff, diff), and he has stated he would continue (diff, diff). It started after I made a single edit (diff) in good faith to List of Thelemites which he reverted. I really couldn't have cared less about the reversion, but what I didn't expect was a berating on my user talk page which included almost 3 dozen edits in rapid-fire succession while I attempted to respond but had difficulty due to numerous edit-conflicts.

Instead of complaining about that edit on the article's talk page, Skyerise had brought it to my user talk page (diff) with a vengeance. Per WP:REFACTOR, I moved the comment to the article talk page (diff) where I planned to respond/explain (eventually did), but he deleted it (diff) and brought the issue back to my user talk page... additionally angry that I moved "his" comment (diff).

He has used inappropriate edit summaries including "I'm angry at you" (diff) and "bwahahaha" (diff). He twice called me "rude" (diff, diff), and challenged "Who do you think you are?" (diff) Several times he used the language "you don't get to" (diff, diff, diff).

He repeatedly accused me of violating talk page guidelines while he has ignored and repudiated the 3 wiki policies WP:REFACTOR, WP:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and WP:Talk page guidelines § Personal talk page cleanup which explicitly give me the right to remove comments from my own user talk page. He even ordered me "You do not have my permission to move this comment" (diff).

He has escalated the harassment by twice demanding an apology (diff, diff) and threatening me with ANI (diff). He insists the discussion "belongs on talk page where started the conversation" (diff), and finally accused me of gaslighting him (diff). Though I have muted him (minimally helpful), I am at a loss as to how to keep him from my user talk page or get the harassment to stop. I appeal to the ANI readers.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 12:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My pronouns are "she/her". I've got no desire to get into a pissing match with you, I just want you to acknowledge that it was wrong to move my comments to another talk page without first asking and receiving permission. I'm not watching your talk page, I'm only replying when you ping me. Pinging someone who you don't actually want to reply could also be considered harassment. I have already agreed not to post on your talk page as long as you don't ping me there. See also WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So, I will briefly weigh in because I think this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Grorp, I do believe Skyerise is correct that you should have received permission before moving the subject comment, per WP:REFACTOR. That said, Skyerise, this actioon strikes me as more of a venial sin, since Grorp would have been well within their rights to simply erase the comment without explanation. The issue, then, is posting to the article page. You correctly cite to WP:TPO and the language never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page, but I don't see the move as changing the meaning in any way? It does change the audience, but this all strikes me as having been done in good faith. Finally, while I think it is more a matter of etiquette than policy (though anyone should feel free to prove otherwise!), I agree that pings invite replies. Perhaps this is just me, but I am inclined to say that one ping with a 'stay off my page' message is appropriate. It would be after that when pings would become problematic. Tangentially, Skyerise, while not a violation, a review of the history of Grorp's talk page does leave a bit of a bad impression.

So, TLDR: does Grorp owe an apology? Yes, I think so--they made a minor error. Skyerise's reaction, however, strikes me as a bit much. I'd say apologies should be exchanged, but more realistically, perhaps the editors should just agree to avoid one another in the future. A Happy Friday to one and all! Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"I'm only replying when you ping me" is a falsehood. I pinged Skyerise exactly once. Skyerise made 7 more edits on my user talk page after, and 22 before that—that's 29 pings for me (because it's my user talk page). And that is no agreement to not continue posting on my user talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am allowed to copyedit my responses. Sorry you don't like it, but there is one reply by me per ping. Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For those not familiar with WP:REFACTOR, Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved ... Refactoring has a number of uses, including: ... Relocating material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate. ... Material can be ... moved to a different page where it is more appropriate. The words "permission" and "ask" do not appear.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See the "Pruning" heading - Pruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy. One example is "Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I appeal to the ANI readers I really wouldn't do that. The last people you want examinining your edits are ANI readers. ——Serial 13:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Checkusers would be worse. —Matrix(!) (a good person!) 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

arbcom would be pretty bad too I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please shake hands, go to neutral corners, and edit until you both find the legendary "perfect edit", spoken of in Wikibooks of lore. Anyway, both seem to have edited in good faith and now with some steam blown off, maybe this can be closed with no harm done and a lesson or two learned. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to @Grorp: for overreacting. Skyerise (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, even IF the act of moving a content-comment to its related article talk page was against policy, it would neither warrant nor excuse the barrage of abusive language and personal attacks that followed from Skyerise. One would be an error, the other is deliberate and knowing disruptive and abusive harassment, which has continued even after I twice asked them to stop. I have not responded in kind. Skyerise has been brought up at ANI several times for harassment, and also been blocked for the same (the last time just a few months ago by Doug Weller). I have not.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Grorp, you brought this complaint to ANI and it received attention from other editors including some thoughtful words from Dumuzid. Skyerise has apologized. This would be the time ordinarily that this discussion would be closed but it seems like you are looking for something specific to happen next. Liz 04:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, thank you for asking. I don't expect an apology; I do expect action. This is not Skyerise's first rodeo for harassment. They've been sanctioned prior (last time blocked for a month), and it obviously has had no lasting effect on changing their behavior. Indeed I want them sanctioned with whatever the next level is.

Dumuzid's comment is the only one above which supported my action to have moved a comment, "Pruning text – should only be done ... with good cause under policy. One example is "Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate." I did nothing to escalate Skyerise's bad behavior, which started before I moved the comment. I brought this to ANI so an admin can DO something about Skyerise's atrocious actions, but instead I got further harassed by the victim-blaming peanut gallery whose attention somehow got stuck (incorrectly) at one point in the middle of a series of events—no doubt courtesy of Skyerise's immediate response which focused everyone's attention on that one point.

No, Skyerise did not apologize. Coupling the words "I apologize" followed by a 'feeling' they had (Skyerise's impetus for their actions) is not the same as apologizing to me and the community for the damaging actions they did, have done, and will do again. There is no element of contrition, no sense that they actually understood what they did, or that it was wrong, or that they would stop doing it in the future. Every element of an apology is missing except vacant words. It is no different than saying "sorry I got mad" or "sorry I hate you" or "here's your pretend apology so we can go home". Worse, their "apology" edit summary, "now see if Grorp can acknowledge", is just a snide repeat of their several earlier demands for me to apologize to them. Hardly an apology.

Skyerise started the fuss, continued it over several hours, derailed this ANI off focus, then deleted my ANI-notice to them with the mocking edit summary "thanks, that's just what I wanted you to do".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp There is no consensus for any administrative action to be taken against Skyerise. You need to drop the stick, or else you might find yourself subject to sanctions instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300: You are not an admin, 24 hours hasn't even elapsed, and the discussion was sidetracked. ANI is not a game to see who can sway or manipulate the gallery. It is a tool for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You know that nothing in this noticeboard requires that only admins reply to your queries, right? I'm sorry, but you do not get to ignore the point I've made just because of one false "gotcha" moment. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, comment all you want, but I don't think you get to "declare" this discussion over or resolved. There was no gotcha moment, just Skyerise trying to justify their actions ("hE mAdE mE dO iT") and some of you falling for it. But there is still no legitimate reason to act aggressive and harass another editor.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just accusing me of something I never did. I simply advised that things likely won't end the way you think they will if you keep flogging this dead horse. Whether you take it or not is up to you; but don't be surprised if you face a disruptive editing block for ignoring it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that admins do not have "command authority". Grorp, you need to drop the stick as TheDragonFire300 has pointed out. At least give some rope to Skyerise. If they are acting in bad faith, they'll repeat the behaviour. —Matrix(!) (a good person!) 11:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Soapboxing acc

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

Calebman127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A few months old account, looks like all the activity is soapboxing in Ukraine war - related pages . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

His contributions (besides 1 in a talk page) have been reverted. Clearly NOTHERE as well. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Calebman127#Indefinite block. El_C 06:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring & refusal to communicate

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

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

User:TylerBurden habitually overly aggressive, assuming bad faith and incivilty on CT talk pages

Special:Diff/1207413857 - That last sentence is needlessly aggressive
Special:Diff/1208223248 - needlessly aggressive tone in ES
Special:Diff/1207824422 - putting words in my mouth in ES
Special:Diff/1208228313 - Trying to start a back and forth argument on a talk page, when I made a single comment without further involving myself in a single dispute while reviewing his behavior. I honestly tried to avoid getting into a back and forth with him the best I could.

He's been involved in previous disputes as well where people have taken issue with his tone, looking back through his talk page, and almost always has an extremely aggressive tone about him.

I've unintentionally come off as rude or confrontational without meaning to a few times, but I always try to apologize for it. For him, this is a pattern of behavior where he doubles down on the aggression.

Thinking a single, short, agreement someone left in a dispute he hadn't replied to yet after leaving a polite request to be civil, while checking to see if it was a pattern, is hounding is well, it shows an "elevated emotional state", to put it nicely. Hounding requires ill intent, this is assuming bad faith. All I wanted to do was see that dispute in there resolved that hadn't been replied to, but he kept on re-reverting the other editor without discussing. This feels like WP:BATTLEGROUNDing to me. I wanted to not involve myself too much in the dispute, just give my short "i havent heard his side yet" message, waiting for further explanation, with my honest opinion. It was entirely in good faith.

I don't want him blocked or TBANned, I just want him told to take a chill pill and not be so overly confrontational. I don't know any admins personally (and therefore don't know who would be willing to act outside of ANI), and I don't want to take it somewhere so public but really, I have nowhere else to go. There isn't a content dispute ongoing, so I cant take him to 3O or DRN. :/ DarmaniLink (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Munkhin gal persistently removing content from Kumis page

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

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

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

Possible sockpuppet disrupting pages

2001:D08:D8:D574:A406:46BE:3755:1247 has been making unexplained and unsourced changes in multiple pages and is also a possible sockpuppet of @Earth6282. Probably not here to build an encyclopedia. As of now his last edit was on the page Malay-Portuguese conflicts, which has been subject to many disruptive edits which I believe come from him. It seems that every time he gets blocked he creates another account to continue disrupting this and other pages. Javext (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this belongs on WP:SPI? (This seems like LTA)

Either way, it's WP:QUACKING pretty hard to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for replying. I am fairly recent to wikipedia and I apologize I didn't know WP:SPI existed. Like I was saying, he keeps disrupting pages every time he creates a new account. It's pretty clear to me it's the same person. There are many factors like, editing on similar subjects, same grammar errors, making the same edits as the previous accounts. Let me know if I have to do anything or move this to another page in order to report him. Thanks. Javext (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Spam-only sockpuppet accounts need taken care of

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

I would like to bring to administrators' attention, these two spam-only accounts:

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

I highly, highly suspect that Karkiwiki is a sockpuppet account of Sachinsuper, created to attempt to avoid scrutiny. Sachinsuper has been involved in adding the same 'cinemakhabar.com' and 'gamekhabar.com' spam websites across a variety of articles (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4), and I've given that user a final warning today. Well guess what happens several hours later after that final warning? A newly-created account, 'Karkiwiki' comes and adds the same spam website to the Sarfaraz Khan (cricketer) article, added as an inline external link to 'Romana Zahoor' once again like with the previous account (diff).

Even if they aren't sockpuppets of each other, they both seem to be only interested in adding the same spam external links to Misplaced Pages articles. I have informed both user accounts on their talk pages of this ANI report. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (both). El_C 06:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Quintus rex

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

Quintus rex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Edits are full of juvenile personal attacks and evidence of a battleground mentality, including this vulgar insult. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(I am being genuine when I say that it speaks to my feeling of true belonging in this community that it took such a long time for someone to throw a homophobic remark at me. Shout-outs to all the friends I've made here that I'm gonna keep hanging out with after this person is INDEF'd.) Remsense诉 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Quintus rex#Indefinite block. El_C 09:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Racist vandalism-only account

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

As of the time I am writing this, all four edits by Whentheimposterissu (talk · contribs) have been vandalism. Their first two edits were adding racist comments to the Chip (snack) page, and their last two edits were adding the date of the September 11 attacks to the Undertale Soundtrack page. Whentheimposterissu appears to be a vandalism-only account. CJ-Moki (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Clear cases of vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV instead of here. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Amaury needs to go

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

This user has had a history of reverting user's edits without explanation whatsoever. Like, for example, he will revert edits for companies that are unsourced (take Kickin' It and Raven's Home as examples). He is also notable for listing "only editors for films" on pages that he has involvement with. And finally, he is recently getting heat over the Template:Nickelodeon Movies page for restoring an edit that is a "last good revision". He is nothing but a power-hungry tyrant. We need him kicked out as soon as possible, that way we can start fresh without any of his controversies plaguing us. 2001:8003:1D9D:3B00:1007:F1DD:AE39:2822 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not going to respond to the WP:TROLLING IP directly here, but note that this person is abusing multiple IPs. Amaury • 10:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP, you neglected to notify the user, as required per the big red notification at the top of the page. I have done that for you. You have also failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing, so I expect this will go nowhere except into File 13 where it probably belongs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at contribs, maybe the /64 of this IP needs to be blocked. —Matrix(!) (a good person!) 11:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a long-term abuse IP editor who has been around for at least a year now. That editor has been making nonstop disruptive edits to various TV series articles such as Fantasy Island (2021 TV series), as well as constantly harassing users who revert them such as Amaury and YoungForever on their user talk pages, resulting in User talk:Amaury getting indefinitely semi-protected. The aforementioned Fantasy Island article is also indef protected because of disruption from this same user too. I think this ANEW report is where it all started (or at least, that's my first encounter with this clearly unwelcome, highly disruptive editor).

Maybe we should create an LTA infopage for the people unfamiliar with their behaviour? — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I had a look at the block log of the /64 range of the original poster IPv6 address here, and it's been blocked four times in the past, the last block being three-months. And well guess what. A person from this IP range is returning to apparently harass or troll Amaury just within two days after that last three-month block has expired. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Bye bye IP. 6 month block this time. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to see User:Amaury does not necessarily need to go, just as they're getting trolling from ip socks. Must be doing something right. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND

Greetings! Please review the behavior of Alexiscoutinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

removes academic estimate from the infobox, returns Prigozhin claims into the lead infobox, again returns Prigozhin

removes academic journal while keeping Prigozhin claims in the lead infobox

equates academic journal estimate with Prigozhin claims, returns edits again after the partial revert

After being reverted, removes academic journal estimates after being warned on WP:BATTLEGROUND.

In talk, advocates for "WP:DUE weight" while ignoring that it should be achieved using reliable sources, academic sources preferred.

Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gilbert W. Merkx and the Journal of Advanced Military Studies seems relevant. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's staring to look like you're on a mission to suppress Prigozhin's estimate and force push those bold Western estimates. I would also point out that this accusation is distorted. As such, I'll try my best to show the full picture because this is a long story...

1. Regarding the first two edits, there has already been a long discussion at WP:RSN which casted a lot of doubt on the adequacy of including that JAMS estimate. The citation was dubious as the original author of the estimate isn't clear at all (LCU even suggested not citing it and other uninvolved editors seemed to point to the argument that all are simply estimates and reliability should be checked only for the publishing source, which was fine for Prigozhin), yet for some reason, ManyAreasExpert insists that it should be included and that it should override Prigozhin's estimate that was in the article for a long time. If ManyAreasExpert is bringing this issue back up again, it seems he isn't satisfied with the discussions. Let me also point out that it was ManyAreasExpert that connected these two topics.
   1. In this edit sequence, ManyAreasExpert removes Prigozhin's estimate in favor of the dubious estimate he insists is academic. So it appears like he's in favor of something, not me, I reacted to his original actions.
   2. I obviously partially reverted these new edits in 2 parts, , because they never had consensus, and then extensive discussion in RSN and the talk page highlighted those problems.
   3. Then I adjusted/fixed the new citation to highlight the concerns we were discussing.
   4. Then he arguably edit warred and removed Prigozhin from the infobox yet again. I didn't check the timings, but I guess we were already discussing in the talk pages when these happened.
   5. I responded in kind and restored the original version that had Prigozhin's estimate properly attributed in the infobox for months.
   6. Then he edit warred, removing Prigozhin from the infobox yet again, arguing that he's not reliable. An argument which was not inline with the discussion at WP:RSN. There, LCU said that Prigozhin is reliable for statements for the Wagner group and recently Alaexis said this "It goes without saying that each side of a conflict has many reasons not to be fully truthful about their own and the enemy's losses. In this case the question is whether these numbers are cited by reliable sources. I see that the Jerusalem Post cited Prigozhin's estimate of the Ukrainian forces (80k) . Are the losses numbers also cited by RS?" Which shows that the reliability discussion is deeper/has more nuance than simply saying Wagner's leader is unreliable.
   7. He fixed the {{vs}} tag here, cool.
   8. Then I responded in kind and restored to the "status quo" version. I also asked him to not edit war in the edit summary and said some other things. I recommend you check the edit summary.
   9. We stopped before reaching the 3RR.
2. Regarding the 3rd edit ManyAreasExpert linked, it's an example of seeing patterns where there aren't any. He provided a better, more recent estimate by a think-tank similar in tone to that dubious JAMS, but this time properly attributed. I had no problems with it. I only pointed out (not necessarily then, but also in subsequent edits) that it was important to use WP:INTEXT attribution to explicitly show where the estimate comes from and to not use wikivoice to cite it as a statement of fact (something estimates aren't by definition). I thought it was the perfect opportunity to solve the previous big problem and get rid of the burden of that dubious JAMS citation. I substituted the dubious citation with the better one (he provided that new citation by the way). There should have been no problems, the new citation had similar numbers to the problematic one. It should have been a win-win for us. But no, ManyAreasExpert, out of the blue, draws the connection with Prigozhin yet again and reverts the edit. That edit had nothing to do with Prigozhin, but unfortunately he did not WP:AGF and drew incorrect conclusions. I must also point out that I suggested more than once to remove all the multiple estimates from the infobox and put them all in the casualties section. Cinderella157 was also inline with this. If I remember correctly, ManyAreasExpert never commented on it (correct me if I'm wrong). It should be of his interest to do that. Doesn't he think that Prigozhin's estimate isn't worthy for the infobox, but ok for the article body? I'm not obliged to implement that. I gave him the greenlight to do it and potentially solve the issue. It is not of today that I try to minimally edit in Misplaced Pages. It consumes a lot of my time, thus everytime I see an opportunity for someone to make an edit I support, I let them do it. I only push myself to make edits that maybe no one else will do, or when I have to counter edits and try to reach a compromise on changes I see as inadequate. Therefore, I view that second indirect accusation as disingenuous.
3. Regarding the 4th and 5th links ManyAreasExpert provided, I don't see any real issue. If I recall correctly, somewhere in the long WP:RSN discussion, someone suggested using estimate ranges, I think for the infobox to summarize the different estimates. I agreed with that notion and thought it was very applicable to that statement linked by ManyAreasExpert. That statement is in the Aftermath section and talks about the casualties of the battle. It is used to give context to future statements that argue that the battle was a pyhrric victory. Most of the statements ManyAreasExpert wrote in that paragraph I thought were quite good and balanced. However, I thought that statement about casualties was unbalanced. How would it not be? It only voiced a single estimate and the most extreme in favor of Ukraine on top of it. Even if it's a more recent estimate by a Western think-tank, it's not the "last chip in the bag".
   1. Initially, ManyAreasExpert wrote that statement without inline attribution. I found that inadequate as wikivoice was being used to make a statement that seemed like a statement of fact, but was ultimately not. It's simply one of multiple estimates, albeit one of the better ones arguably, and should have proper attribution.
   2. Instead of plainly reverting that statement arguing for "no consensus", I decided to fix it/reach a compromise and added intext attribution to that and other statements, among other things. See the edit summary. So far so good.
   3. But then I also remembered and thought that it would be even more appropriate to show an estimates range (as was probably suggested in the RSN discussion) in that casualties summary statement. Once again, attempting to improve/reach compromise. Although, the principle/idea was good, the execution of the edit, in the first instance, wasn't ideal. I wrote the estimates range, but without attribution. As such, ManyAreasExpert's argument of equating Prigozhin's estimates with the IISS one was valid.
   4. ManyAreasExpert reverts my change to that statement.
   5. I acknowledged the mistake and decided to readd the range, but properly this time (with attribution). There's no stubborness or edit warring, only an effort to reach compromise and do the things right. It is only an expected coincidence that the lower bound for Russian casualties would come from Prigozhin himself. So what? That statement is a summary of the casualties section. It's only adequate to fairly represent it with WP:DUE weight and WP:INTEXT attribution.
   6. Then at 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) ManyAreasExpert created a new topic in the talk page.
   7. Despite saying "Greetings!" and "Thanks!", his frivolous accusation of please stop pushing Prigozhin claims with edit war angered me since I wasn't doing edit war (I've explained the latest events above, I was trying to reach a compromise and fix the estimates range statement, Prigozhin popping up again was an expected coincidence) and he himself participated in edit war in the past (that first engagement about Prigozhin and JAMS). I naturally started the replies with the left foot, not particularly amicable. Between 21:34 and 21:42 I replied this. Yeah, I was annoyed.
   8. But what made me even more annoyed was his revert at 21:46. At the time I discovered it, several minutes later, I found it quite provocative, because I thought we were trying to discuss the matter in the talk page before deleting stuff in the article. We had already exchanged several replies (between 21:49 and 22:01) in the talk page, before I noticed the revert in the article. Needless to say, the discussion was unconstructive. I viewed the concerns of that discussion a done deal (from the previous discussions) and understood that, for ManyAreasExpert, those two estimates could not coexist and no compromise would be reached. We both exchanged deflective replies, as if we weren't on the same tune. He also brought up some conduct links like BATTLEGROUND and "strawman" which I found quite inadequate as his conduct as a whole wasn't exemplary either.
   9. Well, and then, as I said before, I noticed he removed the lower bound of the Wagner estimate and argued for "no consensus". My subsequent action at 22:03 speaks for itself. I thought it was kinda dirty for him to ask for talk in the talk page but at the same time revert the edit he disagreed with. At the time, I didn't know that he first reverted the edit and then replied to me in the talk page. However, that doesn't diminish his unfortunate mistake, he should have checked the talk page first, especially because he created that topic more than an hour before. Finally, as show in the last edit summary, I used the same argument of "no consensus" he used to remove the entire contentious statement about casualties.
4. And this is where we're at. After my final revert in the article, I made two more replies which were left unanswered, by him. Sure an IP editor did chime in there but that's beside the point.

So this is my defense. I know I haven't acted perfectly along the way, but the motivations and principles were legit and my actions were reasonable overall, given the circumstances (considering ManyAreasExpert's conduct wasn't exemplary either, prior discussions, etc). As such, I would also suggest others to weigh in on ManyAreasExpert's conduct when analysing these several events and also the context in the multiple relevant discussions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

62.4.44.220

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

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

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

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

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

IP 122.161.65.115 continues to remove sourced content

On the page Institute of Chartered Accountants of India an IP address continues to remove sourced information disruptively and I have undid it three times. They did not give a single reason why in the edit summary either after the page was covered by copyright violations. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No warnings? I agree their deletions without explanation aren't helpful, but this seems a bit premature for AN/I. --Onorem (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have warned, but this discussion may not continue, so okay. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by CodemWiki

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards