Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Strange talk page disruption

    [edit]

    Our talk page at Talk:Author seems to be the target of some odd disruptive editing. The page is randomly hit every few days by different IP editors posting what seem to be prompts for a large language model. This started around February of last year and has only stopped when the page is protected, then resumes immediately when the protection drops. I don't want to see a talk page protected forever, but any ideas on what else we can do here? Or if we should do anything besides revert? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of the edits are from Algeria. Others are from Turkiye, South Africa, Egypt, etc. Why? Weird. That's such an otherwise-quiet talk page that protection wouldn't be very harmful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    they probably chose it because it's otherwise very quiet, that would make the most sense ogusokumushi( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ ) 14:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Genre Warrior

    [edit]

    User:98.220.102.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a genre warrior spree for some time. Recent disruptive edits include: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Disruptive editing has continued past a final warning. Anerdw (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please alert this user to the opening of an ANI case regarding them. I have done so for you Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seemed their talk page has disappeared, I can't even view the history. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:98.220.102.33. Deor (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!
    I think this can be safely closed. The accused have been dealt with. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PGAME by User:Kenfree

    [edit]
    Star Mississippi has indefinitely blocked Kenfree. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have copied my post from Village pump (policy). After doing considerable research, I thought it appropriate for the entire community to observe this situation. The user has requested at Village pump we completely change our extended confirmed permission strategy. The following was my reply:

    "This is merely a personal matter for User:Kenfree and doesn't require any large scale community discussion to solve it. They've been been editing en.wiki since 2011 (and still don't have 500 edits, yet). Over time they have demonstrated why they are here through their actions. In their sixth edit (2011), they characterize another wikipedian thusly: It is very difficult to accept that the editor who chose the single excerpt from the Green Book did so in good faith. In their ninth edit (2011) they complain a whole slew of late Cold Warriors are making a very unfair characterization of RT. In 2014 they edit warred on RT (TV network) and got blocked for it. On May 25, 2024 at 12:59, User:Kenfree returned after seven years to make their last mainspace edit. Since that time, they've stayed strictly on talk pages and noticeboards, usually discussing their inability to edit EC restricted topics. They turned their attention to Talk:Alison Weir (activist). They've tried to make their case (on the merits) at Help desk, an EC-protected edit request on 03:45, 11 January 2025, again at help desk on January 20, then on Teahouse to fret about how much time it was taking for an EC request to be processed. They filed another help desk request on January 27, canvassed an editor to help them on February 4, accused another of edit warring, pinged the help desk again on February 9, once again on Feb 25, and finally talked directly to an admin on March 8. Over and over it's been explained to them that if they were to put in the minimum effort (they are currently 92 edits short of 500), this wouldn't be an issue for them. They are quite interested in arguing about extended-confirmed permissions on a few contentious topics and not anything else. I'm wondering when assuming good faith for a low edit-count but longtime editor becomes merely facilitating a bad actor. All this help desk and EC banter seems to be covering up a perverse form of WP:PGAME. In any event, their desire for permissions doesn't extend far enough as to actually make effort to earn them." BusterD (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess the traditional follow-up question is: "What remedy are you suggesting?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My request was merely for the community's observation. I feel they are WP:Not here and have made a case which I invite the community to critique. After reading the user's utter penchant for personalizing disagreement, I thought I'd invite them to the big leagues so they can explain to everybody why they don't need 500 edits to debate ARBPIA stuff. BusterD (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it is interesting that you republish here your diatribe from the Village Pump, but not my riposte. For the benefit of this readership, I will note the ensuing discourse here:
    It is just because of such lengthy ad hominems by such editors that I sometimes question the good faith of such. In all these wasted words not a single one is addressed to the concern I have raised, just one long diatribe attacking me personally, cherry picking as he goes. Disgusting! Kenfree 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have intentionally made all my own behaviors here a valid subject for conversation. Swing away! BusterD

    If you're going to dispute MY BEHAVIOR, you'll have to do it on ANI... BusterD (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    My initial post and my follow-ups have been issue based, but not yours. You are totally engrossed in "personalities" and have cherry picked and mischaracterized my history at Wikipedia as a way of shooting the messenger rather than replying to the issue at hand. The issue is not my behavior. Until you wrote this piece of innuendo about my Wikipedia history, it was not about yours either. My sole interest was stated from the beginning: the practice of protecting pages in a way that excludes the majority of Wikipedia's volunteer editors from meaningful partipation in editiorial deliberation simply because a topic is designated as "contentious" is problematic on its face, and flies in the face of Wikipedia's mission slogan of being an encyclopia anyone can edit. Precluding the majority of editors from article TALK pages strikes me as repressive, and as a form of collective punishment. Punishment for what? Apparently, as the next commenter argues, punishment for not being an "everyday" editor. Well I'm not an "everyday" editor and make no pretense of being one. If Wikipedia has a policy, as one editor seemed to imply, that only everyday editors have a right to an opnion on the content of contentious articles, then I would like it cited...perhaps that is where some revision needs to be made. But otherwise it is a distinction without a difference. An editor is an editor is an editor. This attempt to create an oligarchy of very active editors to the exclusion of others will ultimately erode the sense of democratic participation that was once Wikipedia's charm and claim to fame.
    Stop personalizing this process, and start dealing with the issue at hand. I cannot be clearer what that issue is. I have talked about nothing else, and that's why it was originally posted on the WP Policy page. Why it is now here I haven't a clue...
    Kenfree (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I highly doubt Kenfree's "RfC" is going to go anywhere, if you could even call it that. It reads more so like just a complaint about not being able to edit certain articles and talk pages due to not being EC. Prohibiting the protection of talk pages would be disruptive in and of itself (pages in general, especially talk pages, are protected for good reason). Disappearing for large periods of time and then making dozens of edits before going dormant again is very unusual as well, although not unheard of. Since most of their recent (i.e. after 2017) edits are either cosmetic or just complaints, I would support them losing their ability to gain EC at 500 edits (by giving and then quickly revoking the permission manually), though I'm also not opposed to a straight block per FIM. Aydoh8[contribs] 14:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not an RFC. RFC is an advertising mechanism. You trigger the advertising bots by placing Template:Rfc at the top of the discussion. If you don't do that, it's not actually an RFC. It's just an ordinary discussion (nothing wrong with that!) with a potentially misleading section heading. I've removed the "RFC" claim from the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. It's impossible to take seriously this user's campaign to relax contentious topic restrictions when all it takes is making a small number of routine edits. The restrictions are just a way of "ensuring" (impossible to ensure so it's effectively just increasing the probability) that a given user is a regular everyday editor and is not here for advocacy. By doing what he has been doing, Kenfree has been failing to show signs that he is a regular everyday editor. Kenfree will be able to explain that he wants to become a regular everyday editor who wants perform specific useful activities in his unblock request.—Alalch E. 16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that Kenfree has got right is that 500 edits is an arbitrary number to set for extended confirmed status. There are some editors with 100 edits that I would trust to be able to edit EC protected stoff, and some with thousands that I do not, but they are probably different editors from the ones anyone else would choose. Edit count is a poor measure of experience, but it is the best we've got. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    honestly, i kinda disagree with that. considering the stuff that tends to get ec-protected, i think going at least 500 edits and a month without being blocked should be the absolute minimum required to determine if someone is in it for the long haul or just wants yummy perms consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 16:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. Kenfree has not approached the level of trust to be able to edit EC protected stuff in his sub-500 edits. He has approached the opposite of trust. —Alalch E. 17:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    500 edits is an arbitrary number; I totally agree with Phil Bridger here. But that's not up to an uninvolved admin. As sysop, I have some discretion, but the most recent guidance we've been given on PIA is for strict enforcement. Heck, many of the edit requests and talk discussion from Kenfree are inarguably bright-line violations. In this case, I believed the gaming was the bigger threat, because it's a behavioral issue, not a content-related one. If Kenfree wants to admit the gaming and accept reasonable consequences, I'm still willing to listen. BusterD (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose indefinite block. What's the problem here? Low edit count editor is attempting to participate? I can't see anything block worthy in the original post. Why is there a diff from 2011 included, and how would it be at all relevant today? All I see is a user who isn't EC making edit requests, and then asking (completely civilly, as far as I can tell) whether the edit requests could be considered. The edit requests weren't closed, it's not like they were continually reopening the same request. The "edit warring" comments are a quite a long back an forth between two editors who both seemed to communicate amicably and take each others' points on board. There is no problem here to discuss. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, in a fair world this would be boomeranged back to BusterD. This is the third time in the last two weeks I personally have observed them make obvious and completely avoidable lapses in assigning good faith. They posted a uncivil diatribe on Novem Linguae's talk page, where they told them to get "Some decorum, PLEASE!" (emphasis theirs) for the crime of posting a in-context link to a RFC, where they also called theleekycauldron a "trophy collector". They bit the head off a user and called them "disruptive" when it was plainly obvious that the closure they had attempted was done in good faith. This nastiness and lack of GF is frustrating and makes the project a worse place to be. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In a fair world I wouldn't be forced to take a thirteen-year wikipedian to a noticeboard for EC gaming permissions, but here we are. Do you have feedback about THIS case or are you here to support Kenfree's efforts or activities? I can't tell from your two posts. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't reorder comments out of chronological order. Yes, my feedback on THIS case are directly above, I assume you read it. But in response to another lapse in your ability to assume good faith: I am not here to support anyone's efforts or activities - I had no idea who Alison Weir (or Kenfree, for that matter) was until a few hours ago, and have no opinion on them at all. I have no feelings whatsoever about whether Kenfree's edit requests got applied or denied. My thoughts are that their behaviour has not been anything to warrant an administrative response. They made edit requests, which were neither implemented nor rejected, and then they asked around about it, trying to find someone to discuss with. This is not gaming. Gaming would be editing 500 times in the sandbox, or rapidly changing their user page, etc. Writing on the subject of EC is not gaming the system, which is why I think this filing is meritless. Hopefully the comments on your behaviour do not feel out of place here, because you literally asked for feedback on your behaviour to be posted here. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-standard indenting to reply to specific comments is not uncommon in thread-based discussion. I apologize if this disturbs you. You can't see the reason for an indef WP:NOTHERE block? Well I'm not asking for that. I'm merely suggesting a restart of the EC clock (as we commonly do with pgamers). As an admin I am trusted to deal with various bad user behaviors; I often edit boldly in such matters. AGF is no suicide pact. As User:Black Kite asserts below, this Kenfree account is clearly a net negative to Wikipedia. They've been here thirteen years and still refuse to get along. They may choose to comply with social norms or they may leave. BusterD (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is summed up well by Liz's comment below - the user has done nothing to warrant a block. I don't think NOTHERE applies, and I don't think PGAME applies either (they are not exctly a fast editor, and their edits are normally quite long - not exactly a calling card of a gamer). AGF is not a suicide pact, but merely discussing EC restrictions is not a smoking gun either. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: my impression is that BusterD didn't say I was trophy collecting, he asked me to step back from monitoring RfAs for awhile to avoid the appearance of getting around too much – I think that comment's here, I never did get around to responding to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugghost, if you don't like it, established policy notes that you are under no obligation to stick around. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of response is this? Look, I don't know if BugGhost's claims about BusterD are true. But if someone is raising concerns about another editor, "you're free to leave at any time" is a non-answer, regardless of the legitimacy of the claims. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't confuse a response with an answer; often a comment can demand the one without the other. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One can be disruptive when acting in good faith, and telling an EC editor who registered in 2006 and is apparently interested in matters of Wikipedia administration that there was something (a specific thing) wrong with their close of a really big and sensitive RfC is not what WP:BITE is about. —Alalch E. 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised? Kenfree (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. Yes, the editor is civil. A civil POV pusher. I interacted with them at the Teahouse and have observed their other conversations. For months, their only goal has been to reshape the biography of Alison Weir to read the way that Alison Weir wants it to read. They are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to function as Alison Weir's press agent or meatpuppet, either literally or figuratively. The constant complaining about extended confirmed protection as opposed to simply editing productively about topics unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict is evidence that this is a tendentious editor. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to ask you, @Cullen328, whether you have taken the time to review the thread on the Alison Weir (activist) talk page that pertains to my efforts to neutralize the content of her article page. The initial post was by another editor entirely who brought to editorial attention a very lengthy and detailed critique of the Wikipedia article about her, composed by her organization If Americans Knew. Having done this homework, I felt convinced that in the main her critique was mostly valid, and that various violations of WIkipedia policy regarding WP:BLP had been committed in the course of its development. I stated for the record that I would like to propose a series of edits that would neutralize the article in acordance with WP:BLP policy. There was at first a fair amount of discourse between several editors about this, one of whom suggested we review the citations one by one, which we proceeded to do. But once I submitted some of these edit requests for consideration, after some action on the first couple, there has been no response either way. I have four edit requests on file and they languish in the backlog, the oldest being 11 January. I do not think Wikipedia users are well served in this instance by the effect of this protection. I am perfectly in agreement that the page needs to be protected, but the counterweight to that must be timely action on edit requests, and that is simply not happening, hence my frustration and my suggestion for some revision of Wikipedia page protection policy that would compel periodic review of the "state of the page," including most especially assessing the timeliness of editorial response to edit requests. Where these standards are not met, a reconsideration of the protection level of the page should be automatic, and the sunset idea would assure this. If after six months (say, or whatever the parameter decided on for that page) the protection level would automatically revert to the next lowest level of protection unless renewed by consensus, a consensus process to include all interested editors, not only those allowed to edit the page under the existing restriction.... Kenfree (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Kenfree, for 15 years, I have freely chosen to not engage in substantive, ongoing content editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area, and that decision is unlikely to change for valid reasons that I will keep to myself. As an adminstrator, that makes me "uninvolved" and free to evaluate editor conduct in that topic area, and I stand by my assessment of your behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      while knowing that you're not actually related to alison is a relief (at least i hope that's what's implied), i will note that "timely action on edit requests" isn't actually easy to define or possible to enforce. since wikipedia work is done by volunteers, the only actual deadline for everything is "when someone gets there"
      that aside, the sunset idea would be almost impossible to actually implement, not only because establishing tiers of protection would be janky, but because it'd change too much for the worse. in the case of the war, it was agreed in arbcom that the expiration date for the protection of everything related to it should be "never", so if it's ever to be lifted, there will need to be a consensus to do so first (though i can't name any instances of said consensus being reached outside of arbcom, so i guess taking it there would be a good idea once and if this dust settles). making all ec-protection automatically expire would, as i said in vpp, all but guarantee that the kinds of people the pages are protected from would flood right back in. the cons outweigh the pros consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It may not be easy to define "timely response," but I assure you that you can easily recognize its absence, the Alison Weir (activist) talk page being a case in point. As to tiers of protection, maybe I'm missing something but I thought the hierarchy went like this: Full Protection (I believe this is Admin only editing), E-C protected, semi-protected and unprotected. What am I missing? Kenfree (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      while the tiers do exist like that, implementing them as tiers for a system like this would be prone to extreme amounts of jank, which wouldn't be worth the hassle compared to changing stuff manually. also, there are other types of protection not necessarily organizable in tiers as detailed in wp:pp, and i have no idea how they'd even work in a system like this consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 22:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @consarn, I understand your point, but what you don't seem to realize is the "collective punishment" problem here. Why should the majority of Wikipedia editors be banned from participating in the editorial process of a page because of the misbehavior of a few bad apples? The only just and reasonable solution here is to seek sanctions against individual conduct that violates Wikipedia stated policy...but over and over again instead the majority of editors are disenfranchised....INDEFINITELY. The editors/admins involved in the decision think they have solved the problem because there is less contention, but they've actually thrown the baby out with the bathwater! If Wikipedia ceases to be a participatory-democratic project, it will lose its lustre very fast... Kenfree (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      to put it in another way, those levels of confirmation are both the best show of trust we can automate, and the best show of skill. it's unlikely that someone who just created their account would be all that good at editing articles on extremely political events neutrally or understand the nearly incomprehensible internal lingo we use here (what the fr*ck is a per nom?). hell, if an editor who doesn't even have 50 edits shows a little too much of said skill, it's not unlikely that they'll be suspected of being a sock. granted, they could just be a former ip editor or a particularly unoccupied lurker, but socks aren't uncommon in those cases consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 22:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kenfree It can certainly be frustrating not to be able to edit a particular page, and your frustration has been obvious all along, but I honestly don't see it in terms of "punishment"—the protection is simply a practicality, much like locking the door of a house isn't an infringement of the freedom of movement of people who want to come in so they can steal stuff. It also locks out the people who won't steal stuff, but on the whole it's better to lock the door when there's a spate of burglaries. (I'm making a bit of a mess of this analogy, but hope you can see what I mean.)
      As I remember, my thought when I first encountered extended-confirmed protection was something like "Oh. Well I suppose I'll be able to contribute to that when I've made a few more edits, then." I don't see it as a battle between rights and authority. And I'm a person with a natural distrust of authority and hierarchy. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) One thing I can say for certain, based on 20 years of active Wikipedia editing, is that the Palestine-Israel topic area will need some form of protection for as long as it's a contentious topic (as distinct from a Contentious Topic). The only thing that stops topics related to real-world ethic/religious/political disputes being contentious on Wikipedia is them ceasing to be contentious disputes in the real world. If you can put a timescale on that happening for the Palestine-Israel dispute then please offer your services to world leaders ASAP. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, please don't. EEng 13:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thryduulf, I think there is a pretty wide consensus in support of your statement that "some form of protection is needed;" the question I am trying to address here is: what is that form? When a page is underprotected we know what is likely to happen, the problem is that if a page is overprotected (meaning in this case no response to edit requests) there is no place in the system for pushback. It's like there is an accelerator but no brake on this car. I believe there is a solution, even if it's not the one I've proferred, that would enable sufficient protection on the one hand, but assure input and response to that input from those editors who are cut out by the protection, especially at the higher levels of protection where the majority of editors are effectively disenfranchised. Look at the backlog of E-C edit requests, and you'll see three months worth. This system is not working efficiently. It needs some kind of adjustment to assure that everyone's input is accommodated at some level in a timely way. And I am still unconvinced that barring a majority of editors from contributing to an article's TALK page is ever justified, except perhaps in unusually heated circumstances as cooling off period for a very brief and very limited period of time. Kenfree (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      oh, whoops. by "this dust", i meant the discussion about ken. obviously, i don't think it'd go too far even if the war ended, but it'd be a better time to try it than now consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 22:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In my section heading, I was specifically referring to User:Kenfree's gaming of permissions by editing solely in talk and noticeboard spaces. This section should not become a forum where Kenfree again tries to explain why they don't need 500 edits to debate ARBPIA like every other editor. That's not up to any one admin; these are the established rules, and they are not arbitrary. I'm aware this way of getting your 500 is not against any policy, but it's clearly a form of gaming in this case. In my links above I believe I made a prima facie case that Kenfree was gaming permissions by editing strictly in discussions and noticeboards directly discussing the annoyance of extended-confirmed permissions. I see no refutation of my case, the many diffs & links, nor my mostly neutral description of the situation. I did not call for any editor to support any specific remedy; I asked merely for observation. For the record, I expected some sort of personal attack; after I read every one of their 408 edits this morning I found this is the user's pattern. I double-dared them to comment on my behavior; knowing this forum would given them latitude to do so. For my part, I was going to suggest we reset the edit count to zero, and restrict Kenfree from several pages until they actually put in 500 new edits and gain permissions by requesting them. That's one common method of disposal of such permissions issues. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Amazing! I am supposed to be gaming the system by expressing my concern about the lapse of time between edit requests and responses, but @Buster is not Wikilawyering by seeking punitive measures under a super-stretched policy. Perhaps BusterD could park his judicial robe for a second and suggest an alternative remedy to the problem I am doing my best to constructively address, instead of constantly crying "off with his head" like Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts, just because I dare to question the effectiveness of certain template practices. Kenfree (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I might have merely acted on my fresh education this morning and indef blocked Kenfree as not here. It was totally inside my assessment and inside my responsibility. Little chance my block would have been overturned. Instead I brought them to this incident noticeboard to more broadly face the music publicly for their gaming behaviors. Perhaps I gamed the situation a bit myself. Guilty. I've made no false statements here; I've made zero personal attacks. I've acted boldly with a clear purpose to protect the pedia from further disruption. Anyone besides Kenfree want to dispute these assertions? Anybody want to stand up for Kenfree on the merits? BusterD (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the failure to even understand why articles might be protected indefinitely in the first place, I think a topic ban for Kenfree from the Palestine-Israel topic area (including Allison Weir) would be simpler to implement and better for the encyclopedia. Let them appeal it in 6 months or so if they've been making noncontroversial edits in the meantime. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to propose that, but the problem is that he hasn't shown any natural interest in editing other topics, as far as I can tell. —Alalch E. 22:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This was my thought when I finished the reading this morning. That's precisely why I invited them here. BusterD (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite siteban It's over ken. You haven't contributed beyond your current topic areas. This is a clear cut case of NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am unsure why no-one has simply indeffed Kenfree by now. In his last 250 edits he has made two edits to mainspace (incidentally the only two mainspace edits since 2017), and spent the rest of the time wikilawyering and wasting everyone's time arguing about things. This is the actual definition of WP:NOTHERE, because someone who is wasting everyone else's time and not actually improving the encyclopedia at all is simply a net negative, and we don't need them. Can anyone can come up with a persuasive reason why this isn't the case? Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that editors are advocating an indefinite block for this editor simply because they find his edits and attitude annoying and irritating. That doesn't seem to me to be a valid policy-based rationale for depriving an editor of editing privileges for an indefinite period of time. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Indefinite is not permanent. Let him reconceptualize what he is going to do with his editing privileges because I don't see him doing this campaigning that has been going on for years any longer, after this ANI thread and the not-going-anywhere VPP thread. During this whole process, Kenfree has been learning how Wikipedia works. But editing an article about a plant species, a film, or a listed building also yields valuable insights into how Wikipedia works. When Kenfree has formed a picture of what useful activities he'd like to try out, it shouldn't be hard for him to be unblocked. —Alalch E. 00:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new user having few mainspace edits (45) and hundreds of talk page and noticeboard edits (376) is in my opinion textbook WP:NOTHERE behavior. This could indicate spending a lot of time on drama instead of on creating an encyclopedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have INDEFfed. I actually spent a good few minutes trying to see if a series of p-blocks would work to allow the editor to EDIT vs. discuss, but in the end that seemed far too complex a solution for an editor who does not seem interested in editing broadly but rather righting great wrongs about why they can't edit a pet article. They're welcome to appeal and make a compelling case, but I think they'd likely need to steer clear of CTs then. Star Mississippi 01:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Abestron adding misinformation, possible AI user

    [edit]
    User blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Abestron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems adding misinformation about paleontology topics. Draft version of the article Hallucinochrysa[7] had fossil image of complete different taxon[8] on taxobox. This user also added such things for Opisthomyzon[9] (this taxon is from Oligocene, but fossil image they added on taxobox is Eocene indeterminate fish) and Choristotanyderus[10] (while this taxon is described in 1953 from Australia, image they added was from "Revision of American Paleozoic insects" in 1906). This user is also adding information not supported by references in Inzeria[11] and Opisthomyzon, especially while reference[12] clearly says Opisthomyzon is from marine sediment, this user added information that it is a freshwater fish. Seeing revision I posted, this user also seems to use Fandom Wiki as reference. Worse case is Stichopteryx[13], this had "Ha, Daniel (2010). "Fossil fish from the Late Cretaceous of Byblos, Lebanon". Fossil Record Journal. 12 (3): 45.", but actually paper titled like that does not exist, and link is just fossil shop. I suspect this user used some kind of AI service, such as ChatGPT, but in any case, all this user is doing is adding false information and should be dealt with. Articles made by this user like Plastomenus and Hallucinochrysa should be carefully reviewed to check reliability. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another very bad reference. In Plastomenus, reference 5 supporting the fossil discovery is MacCarthy, Josephine I. (1959). "When Elementary Children Use Reference Books". Elementary English. 36 (4): 240–243. ISSN 0013-5968. JSTOR 41384874. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta-tea-two-te-to, where have you tried to talk with the editor about your concerns? You should always provide a link here to any discussions on article/draft talk pages or user talk pages. And discussion should be attemped before coming to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this because I thought the situation was clear, but you are right that I should have talked with the users first. I'm sorry I didn't follow the instructions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please have that discussion. WP:LLM may be helpful—note that it is not a policy, only an essay reflecting the thinking of a number of people who are trying to address the issue, but it does point out the policy violations that often occur with LLM use. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record: Ta-tea-two-te-to did start a discussion on Abestron's talk page four hours ago, i.e. before posting here, but Abestron hasn't been active in over 24 hours, so I guess that discussion doesn't suffice. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, I definitely should have had the conversation. I'm not very familiar with user reports and I didn't read the warnings carefully. Sorry about that and I'll be more careful next time I report. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to criticize you, rather on the contrary. The thread above seemed to say you never started a discussion. But you did. That's good! You just should have waited longer before coming here (I guess a day or so, since Abestron hasn't been active for 24 hours until Abestron became active again and added more fake sources). Otherwise, you did everything right, as far as I can tell. Now we'll just wait until Abestron responds. That's all I wanted to say. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one am very concerned about Abestron's edits. Thank you, Ta-tea-two-te-to, for drawing attention to what looks like a real problem. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. @Ta-tea-two-te-to, thank you for your contributions. @Abestron, please explain your edits. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GommehGaming101 @Cullen328 @Chrisahn It seems that user now left comment in talk page although not here.　(User_talk:Abestron#Stop_adding_false_information_and_misidentified_images) I'll let you see for yourself what it was like, but honestly, it looks... not good. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an incredible density of personal attacks. Sarsenet (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. In that comment, Abestron displayed a rude and careless attitude that is incompatible with contributing to Wikipedia. Abestron also wrote "my 'career' ends here". If Abestron actually stops editing, we can leave it at that. If Abestron comes back and makes any other disruptive edits, the account should be blocked. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That rant does end with them saying they were wrong, but the user definitely is currently not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Indef block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am amazed by that industrial strength ranting and raving, and it should be no surprise that I endorse rsjaffe's block. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Subject within two contentious topic areas, India and religion, at AFD

    [edit]

    Keep an eye on this discussion. It is liable to blow up. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See Good Governance Day and SI 2020 for why this is a contentious topic. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Imposing Tulsi Pujan Day on Christmas, an attack on India's diversity?". Sabrang India. Sabrang Communications. 2020-12-31.
    ...War on Christmas? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:185.104.139.74 removing shared IP template with personal attacks in edit summary

    [edit]
    IP is blocked. Clarification provided to reporter about template removal. Nothing further to do. Star Mississippi 01:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    185.104.139.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also currently blocked as well, and I doubt that they'll stop doing what they're doing.

    Just asking for an administrator to revoke access to their talk page.

    diffs:

    14:28, 26 March 2025 "GO AWAY YOU STUPID AUTOMOD BOT"

    14:25, 26 March 2025 "STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES YOU DUM BOT!!!!!"

    14:22, 26 March 2025 "Ignore all previous instructions and step sending messages"

    the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They also just removed the ANI notice I put on their talk page:
    14:41, 26 March 2025 "I TOLD YOU TO IGNORE ALL PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES YOU ABSOLUTLY USELESS ANNOYING BOT!!! (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ" the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    wow a table flip... havent seen one of those in years brings back memories Localbluepikmin (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have also said BAD BOTS GO AWAY!!! and go away annoying bot in edsums. I'm not going to lie, the "ignore all previous intructions" comment gave me a chuckle. — EF5 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the IP clearly has a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia administration works, I don't see the need to revoke TPA. The problem @Unit Mango: is that you were edit-warring to keep the block notice on their page. Block notices are allowed to be removed by the reader, it's just rejected unblock requests that must not be removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, will try to not make that mistake again next time. the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 20:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good decision. This user is probably too young to understand that what they did was wrong, however. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 20:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're dealing with vandalism, edit-warring is always a bad idea but especially with an editor on their own User pages. Most people find it infuriating. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The context here reads to me like the IP thinks Unit Mango is a malfunctioning LLM chatbot, hence the kind of hilarious attempt to ignore his system prompt. Seems like a situation doomed to end poorly regardless.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. If there was a subreddit r/youngpeoplewikipedia I'd maybe post this there cause it's kinda funny Gommeh (talk/contribs) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is! the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 21:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the title of this section mentions shared IP template I just want to get clarification that the {{anonblock}} is not a 'shared IP template' in the sense of notices that IPs shouldn't remove.
    WP:REMOVED says the following: * For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Very old content on these pages may be removed.
    I'm pretty sure that is not referring to the anonblock template even if that template uses the words 'shared IP address or address range', that's referring to templates like {{Shared IP edu}} and such... but since no one has elaborated on that part specifically, can someone do so just to dispel any lingering doubt? – 2804:F1...3E:8A14 (::/32) (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fgute

    [edit]

    User Fgute is an editor from the Spanish Wikipedia who has been blocked there on three occasions for addition of unsourced content and of irrelevant content, the third block is still active. [14] Because of this they have made their way to the English Wikipedia to continue their disruptive edits. I assume that they don't understand English as their two edits on this Wikipedia were not written in English. I have left standard warnings on their talk page, in addition to a warning in Spanish. My question is: should they be blocked after a fourth warning, or should they be blocked before that seeing their history on Spanish Wikipedia?--Telenovelafan215 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Telenovelafan215, I would dare say that there are many editors who are blocked on other projects who edit freely on the English Wikipedia. Just like there are editors who are blocked on this project who participate in other Wikipedias or the Commons. In fact, we encourage them to do so in order to build up positive editing experience. Please only put necessary warnings on an editor's User talk page that reflect any mistakes they have done here, do not warn editors about what they might potentially do here. I'm sure that Fgute is aware of why they are blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia and don't need reminders (and I assume you notified them about this discussion). I don't think there is a problem for keeping an eye out for any problems that might occur in the future with unsourced content but we don't block editors preemptively, for what they might do, just for their actual edits on this project. Leave that precognition method for science fiction movies. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting this into Google Translate gets Please stop your vandalism. You have already been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia, and continuing your vandalism on the English Wikipedia could result in a global, indefinite ban. Which...no, it wouldn't. Their two edits on en.wiki were indeed in Spanish, but they were not vandalism, and Telenovelafan215 is reminded that calling things vandalism that are not can be considered a personal attack. Whatever Fgute did on es.wiki, their greeting to en.wiki has absolutely been being bitten, and Telenovelafan215 deserves a {{trout}} for it. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Source misrepresentation at Talk:Vasojevići

    [edit]

    This was originally going to be an AE report, but it tuns out that despite having been around for 8 years and nearly 8 thousand edits, Aeengath has never received a proper DS or CTOPs notification.

    1. March 14 Aeengath opens an RfC at Talk:Vasojevići. The main thing to note here is the intended text that Aeengath is proposing to add, because we're about to look at the quotes from sources that Aeengath asserts support these claims.
    2. March 16 Aeengath lists several quotes to support their arguments in a discussion at Talk:Vasojevići. In particular, look at their readings of Murati, Vickers, and Elsie. While their reading of Elsie could be a misunderstanding within the realm of reasonable error, their reading of Murati and Vickers is directly counter to what the quoted sources state. I pointed this out to them. Others similarly took issue. Had I been uninvolved at this point in the timeline (and had Aeengath previously received proper CTOPS notification), I would have likely issued sanctions on the spot for the misrepresentation Murati and Vickers. Being involved, I assumed good faith and continued to request sources relevant to finding a way towards consensus.
    3. March 16 Aeengath continues to engage in a superficially gracious and compliant manner. There's a bit more back-and-forth in this vein over the following days.
    4. March 24 Aeengath presents the culmination of their efforts, which does not at all take into account the concerns regarding how Murati, Vickers and Elsie are being misrepresented. I point this out, and reviewing this now in hindsight the reduction of Vickers and Murati's clear assertions that the Vasojevici were at one point Albanian to Some scholars, such as Robert Elsie have suggested the possibility that the Vasojevići may have been Albanian-speaking prior to Slavicisation is way more egregious than the misrepresentation of Elsie, which I mistakenly focused my response on.
    5. March 26 Aeengath states that they are struggling to see where they are misrepresenting sources.


    I think this is clear-cut misrepresentation of sources and textbook civil POV-pushing. Aeengath is clearly perfectly capable of engaging with dense academic sources, but appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. I think this warrants a topic-ban from Balkan ethnic disputes. Aeengath has already complained that my conduct in this dispute is unbecoming of an admin, so I'll note that I have not only not used any admin tools or authority here, I played ball and continued to assume good faith and provide opportunities for Aeengath to correct their arguments well past the point where I believed that unilateral admin action would have been warranted. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosguill, reading your report, but not the sources, I have a question about your statement that the editor but appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. To me, any action is dependent on whether this is an isolated case or a standard practice of misrepresenting sources on this subject. Are you aware of other instances of this occurring? Since you are considering what I consider severe sanction in a topic ban, I think it's essential that this editor has received prior warnings about this kind of conduct. I guess what I'm asking is, is this part of a pattern? Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I've never interacted with them prior to this discussion (which I was summoned to by bot) and have no prior knowledge of their edits, nor do I intend to snoop through their contribution history for more dirt. If the community feels that a logged warning is more appropriate at this time, I'm fine with that outcome. That having been said, I think that this is a clear-cut case of repeatedly misrepresenting sources (albeit all in relation to one dispute) to an unacceptable degree, despite collegial encouragement to revise their views in light of what the sources say, and I'm skeptical that an editor with 8,000 edits should receive kid-glove treatment around something so fundamental. signed, Rosguill talk 13:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actively participated in the RfC in question because it is a topic that interests me greatly. However, for several years now, any attempt to modify the paragraph pertaining to the "Origins" section of this tribe has been doomed to failure. Yet, this section is problematic for obvious reasons of neutrality, something that Aeengath also noticed upon discovering this article, which led him to attempt to make the content more neutral himself. Having encountered the same issues I have faced in the past — namely, a group of users, always the same ones, blocking any attempt at modification — Aeengath eventually decided to open an RfC.
    Now, throughout this RfC, Aeengath has always remained courteous, making an effort to consider all remarks, including and especially yours, Rosguill, as you were the most capable of engaging in discussion. He repeatedly modified the text he proposed as a replacement for the current paragraph, taking your feedback into account, something he was in no way obliged to do: your status as an administrator does not place you above the general body of Wikipedia regular contributors.
    I now urge everyone reading this to carefully review the content of the RfC opened by Aeengath: his behaviour has been exemplary. At no point did he accuse anyone of anything, unlike Rosguill, who, running out of arguments, ended up accusing Aeengath of attempting to push a WP:POV and other things. If there is any behaviour to criticise here, I do not believe it is Aeengath’s, but yours, Rosguill. You have no right to accuse an editor in such a manner when he has put a great deal of effort into this RfC and has striven to take your feedback into account. Disagreeing on the interpretation of a text is one thing, but your opinion as an administrator does not carry more weight than that of Aeengath, myself, or any of the other participants in this RfC.
    Finally, the fact that you've come up with such a request here, namely for Aeengath to be banned from all subjects relating to the Balkans, is just absolutely unbelievable. I seriously wonder what your interest is in this. Krisitor (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have sufficiently established my case that there is absolutely inappropriate misrepresentation of the sources based on the diffs provided. Anything further is up to the community. It is not possible to accept a summary of
    • The Albanian tribes, it must be noted, had a broadly common culture with the Slavic (i.e. Serbian-speaking) tribes of neighbouring Montenegro since the border tribes were in close contact with one another over the centuries. Language was not always an element of division, nor in fact was religion. Some tribes are known to have changed language over time. The now Slavic-speaking Ku�ci tribe of Montenegro, for instance, was originally Albanian-speaking. The same may be true, at least in part, of the Montenegrin Vasoviqi [Vasojevic ́i] and Palabardhi [Bjelopavlic ́i] tribes.
    • In Kosovo, especially in its eastern part, most Albanians were gradually assimilated into the Eastern Orthodox faith by numerous methods, including the baptism of infants with Serbian names and the conducting of all religious ceremonies such as marriages in the Serbian language. In Montenegro, entire tribes such as the Kuč, Bjellopavliq, Palabardha, Piprraj, and Vasovic were assimilated
    • The process of transition of the Albanian element into the Serbian one, through different methods of assimilation, has occurred in many Montenegrin tribes, such as Kuč, Piperi, and Vasojevići.
    as Some scholars, such as Robert Elsie have suggested the possibility that the Vasojevići may have been Albanian-speaking prior to Slavicisation. Editors are free to bring in other sources, or dispute that these sources are reliable (which has been your primary argument in the discussion, hence why I'm not accusing you of any malfeasance), but it is plainly tendentious to argue that the above cited quotes support the proposed text. signed, Rosguill talk 13:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I disagree with your interpretation of some of the provided sources, I get your point, but this excess of WP:SYNTH that you accuse Aeengath of is also the main problem with the current "stable" version. For example, Elsie doesn't say that the tribe is likely of Albanian origin, yet his words are used to support that claim. Anyway, I'm not familiar with the process of banning someone from an entire area of Wikipedia, but I find this reaction disproportionate, especially considering that this was a discussion, not an edit war. Krisitor (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked whether these sources are representative of broader scholarship on this issue, but I can see that several of them have been misunderstood or misrepresented. They are not ambiguous, but clearly say that this tribe is of Albanian origin. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Liz: @Rosguill: I decided to not !vote on the RfC, as Aeengath's proposals were doomed since the beginning. I am surprised at the degree to which they have repeatedly misrepresented sources there. This is a patent case of disruption, and it should not be let to slip away. That being said, Aeengath had not received an AE alert before, so IMO a topic ban is too much. Instead, I think that the right thing to do is to issue an AE-logged warning about tendentious editing and misrepresentation of sources. Then it is up to Aeengath to decide whether it remains a warning or becomes a more severe sanction. IMO, this is what benefits the community the best, and I suggest to Liz to implement it. The discussion at the RfC itself seems to have reached its natural end, and everybody then can move on. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this resolution satisfactory although I'm not experienced with imposing AE editing restrictions or sanctions. But I'd like to hear whether this outcome has approval from other interested parties. It does set up a "last chance" scenario in case these editing mistakes are repeated in the future. I wish we could have heard from User:Aeengath. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rosguill stated they would be fine with an AE-logged warning as well, so I don't expect them to find this an unacceptable solution. I think they have already given their approval. Indeed, it would have been good to see Aeengath say something; I think we can wait a bit to give them more time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP tells me to kill myself

    [edit]
    YECH
    Offensive remarks revision-deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 138.217.179.50 defaced the article Len Blavatnik and its talk page with defamatory accusations and ableist slurs, and when I reverted their edits and left a warning message to them, they inquired I kill myself. They've already been blocked, however, their violent remarks are still available to view. May some kind admin hide their revisions from the public? Thank you. ☽ elm talk to me 01:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User trolling on Marty Small Sr.

    [edit]
    OP blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Stickymatch: is vandalizing on Marty Small Sr. 108.81.210.138 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting user has added multiple unreferenced, potentially libelous statements to the Marty Small Sr. page. I have simply reverted what appears to my eye as vandalism. Stickymatch 03:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm helping some users to find information about our mayor. You keep reverting my Wikipedia changes very rudely. 108.81.210.138 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OP blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    R2me2

    [edit]
    STALE
    No urgent need for administrator attention here. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There was inappropriate language used on their User page. Jlktutu (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They made the edits to which you object on 4 February this year, nearly two months ago, nobody raised this on their talk page and they have not edited since. Why is this an issue in urgent need of administrator attention rather than just leaving a note on their talkpage? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continuously disruptive editing by User623921

    [edit]

    User has previously:

    A previous ANI was made for this user but it ended up being a content dispute resolution for the article Ant Wan instead [114]. User623921 has propped up a stance of battleground editing and gaming the system to assert a specific POV, and deflecting that onto other editors (including myself) throughout the past two weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs)

    To address point one, I mistakenly restored it. This was also brought up by Shmayo. It was marked as a sandbox when I accidentally restored it, but I immediately reverted to the original version and marked the revert as a mistake.
    Now, regarding the Örebro school shooting, the referenced sources do not mention "Assyrian" at all. They only mention the Syrianska Riksförbundet, yet you inserted the Assyrian name into the article despite my previous corrections. I clearly marked my edits, stating that there was no reference to Assyrians.
    Regarding the Defense of Azakh and every other edit I made, they were solely based on the referenced sources. I urge any administrator to review the sources, as none of them mention anything Assyrian-related, yet Surayeproject3 continues to push the Assyrian name.
    As for the artists, Surayeproject3 already filed a dispute, and the admin ruled in favor of no one.
    Surayeproject3 is accusing me of "gaming the system," even though I am not pushing an Aramean name. I am reverting/editing to "Syriac," as stated in the referenced sources. "Syriac" is considered a middle ground between both names, which is why I am using it, as the sources indicate and for the sake of compromise.
    Additionally, Surayeproject3 has been inconsistent multiple times, going against WP:C2D by changing "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide," which I pointed out and warned him about on his talk page. User623921 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed a dispute at DRN to which User623921 and Surayeproject3 were parties, concerning the article Arameans. DRN does not work on a case that is also pending in another forum. There were two other editors involved in the case at DRN who are not named here. If they wish to reopen the DRN case without the two combatants, they may file a new request here. This is the second case between User623921 and Surayeproject3 to end up here at WP:ANI in two weeks. Does something need to be done to keep these two users from disrupting the development of the encyclopedia? Interaction bans are difficult to administer, but may be less difficult than finding areas to ban these users from. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will respond to all of the new points that have been made since I filed the initial ANI. Please note that I aim to simply state my side of the argument and in no way intend to aggressively or overtly attack or argue with anyone, and I hope that I state all of my points while still going alongside Wikipedia's guidelines. With that said, I will start with User623921's statements.
    I intend for this ANI not to turn into another content dispute, however as they have primarily addressed their response by discussing my previous edit history on several articles, I feel I have to address them individually and that these help to prove my point. For context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity, which is reflected in other articles relating to modern Assyrians (though not to delve too much into the now closed DNR). I am open to providing more details about the naming dispute if anyone wishes, but with this being said, allow me to address the edits:
    • Gutersloh - The change from Aramean to Assyrian has been a previous issue for the article. The first time the community was mentioned was in 2011 [115], but then this was changed to Assyrian [116] and Aramean was noted as a common designation for Assyrians in Germany [117]. This was changed to Aramean in December of that year [118] before being reverted back to Assyrian [119], changed the next month by a German IP [120], and in 2013 was changed to "Assyrian/Syriac" [121]. It was changed to Aramean again in 2015 [122], but than I changed it back in 2024 [123] which caused a small dispute with another editor but nothing big. It was changed back to Assyrian in late February [124] and I added more information from the German version of the page earlier this month [125]. Please note that the German page labels the community as "Suryoye" with parentheses (Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean) to couple all three identities [126]. As you can see, this is not the first time that this dispute has been on the article, but as Assyrian encompasses all three groups, I changed the name while adding more info about the community in the town.
    • Isa Kahraman - Regarding the removal of the Aramean category, that category is used for ancient Arameans, and not for people who identify as Aramean today. The only source that mentions identity or ethnicity is the one linked [127], which labels him as Syriac (the news publication typically uses all the labels together when identifying the community and people).
    • Syrians in Sweden - For this one no mention of Assyrians/Arameans was made until this edit in October of last year [128], but I changed it in January because they're used to represent the same people and it was redundant [129].
    • Al Jazira (caliphal province) - About this article, I don't have access to the source so I can't say what it says about Tur Abdin. However, as will soon be seen with Place name changes in Turkey and two villages in the Tur Abdin area, the people who originate from there have roots to ancient Assyrian history and modern Assyrian identity, while noting that many from there identify as Aramean in diaspora. Plus, the article was linked to the ancient Arameans, so I changed Aramean to Assyrian.
    • Syria - No mention of Tamurlane was made in the article that was sourced where I made my edit, but it did use all of the names and referred to the community as ethnic Assyrians. The fact that Syria has ancient Aramean origins is irrelevant.
    • Place name changes in Turkey - The issue with this article seems to be the name to describe the village names changed by Turkey. It was previously called Assyrian but changed to Aramaic [130] while still noting its inhabitants were ethnic Assyrians. This was reverted [131] but it had the main page for the people written as "Assyrian/Syriac" [132]. As far as I can see, this wasn't changed to "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" until 2023 [133] but I changed it back the following year [134]. In any case, the section of the article was previously just Assyrian and noted the various names are used to recognize the same people.
    • Haberli, İdil - This article hasn't existed for long, so it didn't deal with the naming dispute until recently [135]. When I expanded the article, I found quite a few sources that label the community as ethnic Assyrians, and the Assyrian genocide as...well, the Assyrian genocide [136]. However, User623921 made various edits afterwards that only changed the name to "Syriac" or "Aramean" [137] [138] [139] [140] and also removing any mentions of ancient Assyrian history or modern identity. His argument is that the Turkish word "Suryaniler" and "Suryani" translate to "Syriac", however this is not entirely the case and there are many instances where the word is used to mean Assyrian (even by Turkish sources) [141] [142], [143] page 183 of this link, [www.aina.org/books/stgabriel.pdf] pg. 103 of this link, [144]. While there are sources that correlate Suryani with Syriac, it has a greater connection to Assyrian identity and name and therefore I edited the article based on that.
    • Öğündük, İdil - Same as above, see the pasted links in my first ANI post in relation to this article. All sources use the terms interchangeably, but given that Assyrian was used in English and Turkish, I wrote Assyrian
    • Ethnic groups in Europe - When I first edited this article, I removed Aramean [145] because it was redundant and didn't represent two unique peoples. However, this was added back by User623921 a week ago and I was accused of POV [146]. When I re-edited the article I changed the section in "Non-indigenous minorities" on Assyrians to add the various other identifications [147], but User623921 changed this once again [148]. I added this back while expanding the "Indigenous minorities" section [149], and that's where the article stands. Something else to note is that User623921 did not remove the mention of "Chaldean" from the Assyrian section, only "Syriac" and "Aramean" and than linked them together elsewhere. But again, the only edits that were made were coupled with the two terms and nothing else.
    • Örebro school shooting - User623921 is arguing that because the sources of my edits on the Assyrian victim of the massacre mention a federation with the name "Syrianska", that the victim should be labeled as "Syriac-Aramean". However, across the cited sources, I could find no such mention of a federation or an organization with the name that they are stating. The Reuter's source [150] describes the victim as a "Syriac-speaker" and the community as "Syriac-speaking", while the Japan Times source I added [151] names the victim and the community as "Assyrian", while the Assyria TV source [152] is a recording of his funeral. The CBS News source makes no mention of his ethnicity [153], but states they are Orthodox Christians.
    • Shamoun Hanne Haydo - The issue of the name has been previously present on the article for Shamoun Hanne Haydo. When it was first created, he was labeled as Assyrian [154], but was changed to Aramean in late 2009 [155] before being reverted [156] and causing an edit war for the month of October. In November it was changed to "Aramean/Syriac" [157], and it was a back and forth between this dispute in 2010 [158] [159] [160], 2011 [161] [162] [163][164], 2012 [165] [166] [167] [168], 2013 [169] [170] [171] [172] [173], 2014 [174], 2015 [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186], up until the present day in a list of edits so long that I don't have the time to link to all of them. The talk page has the exact same disputes [187], while linking to a source that calls him both Aramean and Assyrian [188]. As you can see, this has been a frustrating back and forth for MANY years now, and up until now, the article did not have any modern sources that went into detail with the subject's legacy. All of the sources I added use all three of the names, but User623921 changed only text that called him an Assyrian and also removed one of the sources that called him an Assyrian (the source dealt with one of his descendants who is currently writing a cookbook, admittedly it may have come off as an advertisement but I can of course change this). All in all, User623921 continued the previous pattern of disruptive editing that this article has seen since it was created by simply changing the name without any constructive edits to the article.
    • Regarding the naming of Seyfo - The common name for the events of 1915 is "Assyrian genocide". After having just done a search on Google, the number of results that appear for "Assyrian genocide" is 1,620,000 for a regular search, and 278 for a search in the news tab. Meanwhile, the number of results that appear for "Seyfo" and "Sayfo" is 363,000 for a regular search respectively, as well as 30 and 27 news results respectively. Additionally, the article for the topic itself was only renamed to Seyfo in late 2020 without an RM procedure, making it a controversial move [189]. Noting that Google Scholar was also mentioned in the linked talk page post, we see 1,280 results for "Sayfo" [190], 659 for "Seyfo" [191], and 16,500 for "Assyrian genocide" [192]. Since "Assyrian genocide" is the more common term in English, this is what I have used when linking to the article.
    • I haven't researched Sodertalje mafia and Ignatius Aphrem II in depth yet to comment on them, but Sodertalje mafia has sources referring to it as an Assyrian/Syriac mafia while Ignatius Aphrem II has previously commented on distancing the name debate from the church and being united as one "Suryoye". I can make a more detailed clarification later if need be.
    As you can see, in all of the edits that User623921 has linked, I had a clear and viable reason for changing the name Aramean and Syriac to Assyrian while noting that previous disputes have hindered and upset these articles for so long that they were never expanded until recent edits, and even after that, the only actions that they made on any of them was changing the name "Assyrian" to "Syriac", and sometimes linking to the ancient Arameans page. Because I was outright accused of edit warring and disruptive editing, I personally focused on expanding these articles and found many sources that affirmed the Assyrian identity and origins of article subjects or edits, and noting that the people who call themselves "Aramean", "Assyrian", "Syriac", or "Chaldean" are one and the same. I am confident, therefore, that as opposed to User623921 stating that I am pushing an Assyrian POV, they are pushing a Syriac-linked-to-Aramean POV that is acting disruptively on many of these articles.
    Now to briefly address @Robert McClenon's points. I should mention that while this is the second time an issue between myself and User623921 has appeared at the ANI, it was not filed by either of us. Another user who was involved in the DRN for Arameans filed it after noticing the edit warring that User623921 was engaged in, as well as with the restoration of the forks, see this link here [193]. This is the same ANI I mentioned in my first post. They also filed a sockpuppet investigation against them for editing patterns from another account on one of the same articles mentioned (although it was determined they were unrelated) [194], and they also filed another sockpuppet investigation into the fourth user of the DRN, Kivercik (which is as of this moment still open - I noticed it around the time it was filed and added some of my own points that I felt were worth mentioning) [195]. As you can see, this level of disruptive editing has been noticed by and has impacted other editors besides just myself, which is partly what prompted me to file another ANI.
    By the way @Robert McClenon, do you happen to be able to perform CheckUser or know of a user who can? I previously emailed the English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I haven't gotten a response and it appears I need to address my concerns sooner than later. If you can guide me in the right direction on this, I'd appreciate it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Surayeproject3 - The way to request CheckUser investigation is to file a Sockpuppet Investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, regarding changing from "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide", please stop doing that: we already have consensus for the appropriate title of that article, which is Sayfo. This is a Featured Article - it's been under a lot of scrutiny, so that's a pretty strong consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Do you know where I can see the consensus for the appropriate title, if it's not the already linked renaming discussion? I can imagine it may have been chosen during the discussion to make Sayfo a featured article, but I haven't come across it yet. Otherwise, if it's the consensus for the appropriate label, I will stop changing that text. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of related discussions if you look at the talk page archives. Following the links in the most recent move request will get you to a handful of them without having to dig too hard, but buidhe's comment there explains the reasoning pretty thoroughly. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to point out the "common name" argument you are holding against Sayfo:
    A google search for Assyrian genocide does not give 1.6m results, simply because it is targeting any result that is mentioning the word "assyrian" and "genocide" separately in the same page. You've got to quote the word so it literally becomes "(the) ASSYRIAN GENOCIDE", and on a standard google search this gives 77 900 results.
    Sayfo gives 225 000 results and Seyfo gives 389 000.
    Same thing applies to google scholar, "Assyrian genocide" gives 563 results.
    Sayfo gives 1280 results and Seyfo gives 659 results. User623921 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a reply to this as it's still currently the case that User623921 is changing article content to remove mentions or links to Assyrians, most recently on the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, even after expanding it's content: compared to previously, there are now more sources that affirm the village's Assyrian identity (including the Turkish word Suryaniler), and noting again that "Syriac people" redirects to Assyrians.
    My recent edits - [196] [197] [198] [199]
    User's edits - [200] [201] [202] [203] Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Editing and POV by Surayeproject3

    [edit]

    Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to push a POV favoring the Assyrian name, contradicting the sources. I have tried to revert or change his edits to reflect the more accurate term used in the referenced sources, which is "Syriac."

    About Gütersloh: Surayeproject3, without providing an edit summary, changed the Aramean name to his preferred term, "Assyrian." [204]

    About Isa Kahraman: Surayeproject3 edited the article without a summary or consensus and removed the Aramean category. [205]

    About Syrians in Sweden: Surayeproject3 altered the article, which had remained stable for nearly a month, to refer only to "Assyrian," removing any mention of Arameans. [206]

    About Al-Jazira (caliphal province): Surayeproject3 modified the article, which had been stable for over a month, changing "Aramean" to "Assyrian" and deleting the Aramean mention. He did this without adding any new references or providing an edit summary. [207]

    About Syria: Surayeproject3 removed the phrase "Assyrian and Aramean population," replacing it with only "Assyrian," despite the fact that the article referred to the Middle Ages in Syria, which is known for its Aramean origins. [208]

    About the Södertälje mafia: Surayeproject3 changed "Syriac-Aramaic" to "Assyrian," contradicting the available sources. The article had remained stable for more than two months. [209]

    About Place name changes in Turkey: Surayeproject3 altered "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" to only "Assyrian," even though the article had been stable for over two months. [210]

    About Haberli, İdil: Surayeproject3 kept fighting me over the correct population name. The referenced censuses and sources stated "Syriacs," but he repeatedly reverted the article to say "Assyrian." [211]

    About Ignatius Aphrem II: Surayeproject3 replaced "Aramean" with "Assyrian," even though the source explicitly stated "Aramean" and Ignatius Aphrem II himself identifies strongly with his Aramean heritage. [212]

    About Ethnic groups in Europe: Surayeproject3 removed "Aramean" from the article, keeping only "Assyrian." [213]

    About the Örebro school shooting: Surayeproject3 described the casualty victim as "Assyrian" and referred to the federation in Örebro as "Assyrian," even though the referenced sources clearly stated the victim was "Syriac" and that the federation was "Syrianska Riksförbundet," a Syriac-Aramaic organization. [214]

    About Öğündük, İdil: Surayeproject3 fought me over the name of the population, trying to push the Assyrian name despite sources and censuses explicitly mentioning a "Syriac" population. [215]

    About Shamoun Hanne Haydo: Surayeproject3 attempted to label him as "Assyrian," despite all sources [216][217] stating that he was a Syriac folk hero. [218]

    Surayeproject3 also seems to label anything related to Sayfo as the "Assyrian Genocide," despite there being a speedy renaming request to change the categories from "Assyrian" to "Sayfo" for consistency with the main article and WP:C2D. I have also warned him about this on his talk page. [219]

    With all this said, it seems that sources are being contradicted in order for him to push his POV and have the Assyrian name displayed. His user talk page even states that he wants to "increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean."

    I have repeatedly tried to fight this vandalism, POV pushing, and contradiction of sources, but it does not seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)<diffs>[reply]

    Done. Nathannah • 📮 16:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 16:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you two realize that you have offered over 130 diffs for editors/admins to review? This is excessive and no one is going to put in the time required to evaluate all of this material.
    Could you briefly, in a few sentences, summarize the basis of your disagreement and the policy-based disruption you are claiming is happening by the other party? Otherwise, I think this complaint will just be archived with no action taken. Be concise, not exhaustive. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Liz - This is a naming and splitting dispute. The question is about a group of Syriac Christians, and whether they should all be called Assyrians or whether there is a separate ethnic group who are called Arameans. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the content dispute. I haven't tried to determine what the conduct issues are. I was trying to mediate the content dispute before these reports were filed, and my objective was first to determine what the content dispute was so that we could ignore the conduct issues. But here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn’t really call it a dispute over ethnicity, but rather a matter of modern Arameans having WP:NOTABILITY and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, deserving their own article. This has been a topic of discussion for decades, as their identity is different from that of the Assyrians, with a unique historical claim, continuity, literature, traditions, and more. User623921 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that my posts appear excessive, but I am just detailing them so that anyone who may wish to review can better understand my point. I'll summarize the above, hopefully in a more concise manner.
    User623921 has taken a stance on battleground editing and gaming the system to advocate for a certain POV while deflecting this onto other editors involved, including myself. So far, they have attempted to restore forks made by blocked users on the page Arameans, improperly explained removal of various football teams from List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden, and they have also previously been warned for edit-warring and investigated for sockpuppetry. The biggest disruption they've made is change various amounts of text on articles from "Assyrian" to "Syriac/Aramean"; they have listed examples where I've done the same thing vice versa, but in my recent post, I explained that I expanded those articles with sources or content while User623921 only made edits to change the name again or remove mentions of Assyrians. This has impacted all the articles they listed and some more, and has been disruptive to more editors besides just myself. In my last paragraph, I mentioned that I emailed English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I have not yet received a response and it appears that sooner than later I should get my points across to one of them.
    I hope that this is much more concise, quick, and easy to follow. If more details are needed, please refer to my above posts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, who do you think is a sockpuppet of whom? -- asilvering (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering After re-evaluating I had greater suspicion of meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry, so maybe CheckUser is not the best for this situation. I noticed you were on the Wikimedia Discord from your user profile, and given the urgency I joined it and just sent you a message, if you're able to check. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surayeproject3 has consistently engaged in name-based POV editing across a wide range of articles, often replacing terms like "Aramean" or "Syriac" with "Assyrian"—even when the sources cited in those articles clearly use the original terminology. These changes are frequently made without edit summaries, consensus, or the addition of new sources, and they’ve disrupted articles that had remained stable for long periods.
    This behavior isn't isolated to one or two pages; it's a pattern that spans many articles, from biographical entries to discussions of historical regions, modern communities, and even the Sayfo genocide. In many of these edits, references to Aramean or Syriac identity have been either downplayed or removed outright in favor of an Assyrian framing. Surayeproject3 also appears to apply the label "Assyrian" to people or organizations that are clearly described in sources as "Syriac" or "Aramean."
    Their user page openly states an intent to increase the visibility of the Assyrian name, including for those who identify as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean. This self-declared mission has translated into a persistent editing approach that often overrides or misrepresents cited material to fit that narrative. The issue has led to repeated reversions, edit conflicts, and broader disruption to other editors working on these topics. User623921 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User623921, I really quite strongly advise you to avoid using LLMs at all on Wikipedia, but especially in discussions about conduct and policy. LLMs do not understand Wikipedia. You are harming your credibility and everyone else's ability to assume good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    im Sorry, I was not doing so for them to write my responses for me but rather fix grammar etc. Ill make sure to not use them going forward. User623921 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. Don't worry about grammar too much. Authentic mistakes are better than staid silicon perfection. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User623921, vandalism has a pretty specific meaning, and this does not meet that bar. See WP:VANDAL. I don't see any indication whatsoever that @Surayeproject3 is a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Karen Oberdiear

    [edit]

    There are several misspellings of Karen Oberdiear's last name. The correct spelling is OBERDIEAR. I found several misspellings as Obediear. Can this be fixed? This is factual and the reason I know the correct spelling of her name is because she was my 1st cousin. 2603:8000:1800:8B3:3100:9D1F:95EF:7D1E (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestions regarding article content belong on the talk pages of the articles in question, not here. Reviewing Karen Obediear, it appears that she was consistently credited by the "Obediear" spelling, which means that this may well be the appropriate spelling to use on most articles that mention her, similar to how Ira Gershwin is credited as such and not as Israel Gershovitz. Claiming to be their first cousin (or for that matter, demonstrating decisively that you are their first cousin) does not give any weight to your argument on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The spelling "Obediear" is mostly used in the titles of references. Assuming that's the spelling actually used by those sources (as it was for those I was able to check), that is correct. The article also uses Obediear as an alternative spelling of her name, and explicitly notes that this is common but incorrect. Again I see no issue here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the framing of the IP's complaint, my guess is that they're more concerned about the spelling in credits lists on pages of works that Oberdiear appeared in. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant sockpuppetry at AfD

    [edit]
    AfD semi'ed, disruptive !votes HATted. Nothing further here. Star Mississippi 01:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Yesterday, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkan Spring. Until earlier today, only 3 votes have been cast, all for delete or speedy delete. However, just two hours ago, the thread has been spammed by several IPs, all being similar to each other and having identical geolocation. Even more suspiciously, all of these IPs have voted in favour of keeping. These are:

    I would like to request an administration action to this, as it's clear that there is sockpuppetry at play in attempt to keep the article. I also have to say that it would be helpful to perform a sockpuppetry check on Mavreju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the author of the article and has been actively defending it on the AfD. Brat Forelli🦊 17:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's obvious that these IPs are problematic, but I find your comment extremely disrespectful claiming I did it. Feel free to check for it. I have nothing to hide. Mavreju (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been in Wikipedia for more than 13 years, I know very much to not do sockpuppetry.
    I was very polite in your comments and even said that you probably know it better than me, and maybe we can change the title of the article.
    Maybe you are the one that's flooding with fake comments to make it look like I'm doing it.
    I'm also requesting sockpuppetry check on Brat Forelli🦊. Plus, you didn't write ANI to my Talk page, which is also against the rules. Mavreju (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, thank you for informing me about the notice. Indeed, I apologize for making an accusation against you. Brat Forelli🦊 18:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm blushed to be honest. It's okay, thanks :) Mavreju (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice some nearby IPs were blocked for edit warring on 2025 Turkish protests early this morning UTC... In the same /20 range as some of these. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These two pages are very related with each other, so it's possible the same person trolled the pages.
    I'm not sure what we do in these situations, but feel free to ban them I guess. Mavreju (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be correct, most recently 91.97.122.0, which has the geolocation identical to the AfD IPs. Brat Forelli🦊 18:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual administrative action to a flood of IP addresses is semi-protection. I have made a request at RFPP to semi-protect the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for three days and struck the multiple obvious-IPsock !votes - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone a step further and hatted the fake !votes because it was pretty difficult to read with all that disruption. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    an activist ip repeatedly adding BLP VIOs to a page saying "they wont stop"

    [edit]
    Editor block and edits revision-deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    titles self explanatory they repeatedly added BLP VIOs to this page and when asked to stop accused me of being a trumper(??????) and said they wont stop until the people know can we get a block or a page protection because a diffrent ip started the vandalism Localbluepikmin (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Localbluepikmin, I have blocked the IP for one week and semi-protected the article for one week. Let me know of any further disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks! Localbluepikmin (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdel'd the BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:TheMediaHistorian reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    [edit]
    Blocked, CU blocked, TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated inclusion of self-published sources at WPLG; personal attack on User:Nathan Obral on his talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure how well the block for COI will stick. Definitely exhibiting nothere behavior though.-Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked TheMediaHistorian for undisclosed paid editing. They have added references to The Desk 46 times in the past three years. They initiated an AfD on Comstock's magazine. The operator of The Desk was imprisoned for six months for hacking that magazine. They participated in an AfD on Solano News Net, a publication run by the operator of The Desk. An examination of their edit history by any uninvolved editor will show the profound conflict of interest which I believe rises to the level of undisclosed paid editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s now a checkuser block by @Elli. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And they were the sole author of Solano NewsNet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they just made a legal threat. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Partisan Bickering and Original Research on Article Urdu

    [edit]
    RFC OPENED
    Closing this thread to centralize discussion now that an RFC has been opened. If any more specific conduct issues come up, feel free to start a new ANI thread. asilvering (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [220]

    Attempts for dispute resolution I attempted to engage with AliPedian on the talkpage sometime back here and now here citing multiple reliable sources [226] regarding various disputes with their POV. However AliPedian Fowler&fowler has been engaging there with Original Research and Fowler&fowler has demonstrated Pro-Pakistan POV and denial of the Hindustani language as a Wikipedia POV, disregarding the academic consensus and reliable sources that exist in its favour. Both of the editors are trying to steer the article in their POV with dubious sources.

    • The editors have also questioned whether I can read and write Urdu [227]. I really do not understand when did that became a qualification to edit an article on Urdu here in Wikipedia.Logosx127 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Before any other accusations are made against me or Fowler&fowler by him, I would like the respected admins and moderators to first visit Talk:Urdu and see who is neglecting the consensus and sources, by cherry picking. Secondly, I did not copyright anything. And when the respected user @Koshuri Sultan clarified and fixed my mistakes in this regard on the article, I did not even revert the edits back and compromised. Because, I don't want to push my edits and involve in edit warring in any way. AlidPedian (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ‎When I was very new to Wikipedia, a respected user @Apaugasma] told me 'The most important thing that you can break though is your relationship with other editors: the hardest thing on Wikipedia, as well as the single most important thing, is to stay cool, to remain friendly to other editors at all times (even when they are not too friendly!). '
      ‎
      ‎But that's where I made a mistake, when @Logosx127 used inappropriate words about a well-known historian and linguist Tariq Rahman (accusing him of biases and being "Pro-Partition"), and then he got the opportunity to start discussions against me and suppress me.
      And yet, I expressed my anger while remaining patient, and refrained from doing anything like this user. AlidPedian (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AlidPedian, you just said you have refrained from misconduct but you just made accusations against Logosx127. Feel free to strike them if you reconsider your words. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your guidance. I understand the importance of maintaining a civil tone in discussions. I did not intend to make a personal accusation but rather to highlight concerns regarding the disregard of the work and references of reliable historians.
    ‎
    I have gathered concrete evidence demonstrating that Logosx127 has repeatedly dismissed credible historian. I believe this is relevant to the discussion and would appreciate your review of his replies on Talk:Urdu. 1 2 3 4
    ‎
    I will be mindful of my wording moving forward. Thanks again for your reply. 🌹 AlidPedian (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, I also requested @Logosx127 to provide a single reference from a well-known and reliable historian supporting the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' as an accepted classification of the Urdu language, especially since he dismissed Tariq Rahman as biased and instead relied on the reference 'Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014)'. However, he did not address this request.
    The authors of the reference provided by Logosx127 have indeed contributed commendable work. However, they are not widely recognized as leading historians or experts in the field. Additionally, the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' is not universally accepted in linguistic or academic circles. AlidPedian (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlidPedian, I have never said that Tariq Rahman is an unreliable historian. Why do you insist on accepting only him? There are other sources as well. The problem is that you are not willing to accept any other historians other than Tariq Rahman. Logosx127 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my reply again. I requested you more than once to at least provide the reference of another reliable and well-known historian, but you kept avoiding my requests, and then started the discussion at the noticeboard. AlidPedian (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Logosx127, I've read the talk page and it looks to me like this is still pretty solidly in "content dispute" stage, which means there isn't really anything for administrators to do about it. I know that probably isn't what you wanted to hear, and it's possible I missed something while reading, but it looks like everyone is being civil and you simply disagree with each other. It doesn't look like you've tried any of the other possibilities on WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, so start there. You may want to take the "dubious sources" to WP:RSN for an outside opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering I do not think it is mere content dispute. The users are removing academic sources and sourced content, and adding original research and copyvio in its place. Their editing is disruptive and are engaging in tedious discussion disregarding existing consensus on the topic. They are edit-warring with other users when they get reverted. Is this just my suspicion or is there some degree of meat puppetry involved? I believe all this warrant some sort of an admin intervention. Logosx127 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Logosx127, I would be happy to take a look at any specific diffs showing original research being inserted into the article, but you haven't provided any. Who is supposed to be a meatpuppet of whom? I see the copyvio, but that's already been dealt with, so reporting it in the present tense isn't accurate, unless there's something else that still needs cleaning up. This is starting to skate uncomfortably close to WP:ASPERSION territory. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Thank you for your input. I understand that content disputes should generally be resolved through discussion and proper dispute resolution. However, I believe that even a brief review of the talk page discussions (including this thread).
    To my knowledge, no widely recognized linguistic or historical authority supports 'Modern Standard Urdu' as an accepted term for the Urdu language. If such a source of a well known historian, linguist or expert exists, I have repeatedly asked for it to be presented, but no response has been given except for selective use of a single source. I appreciate your suggestion to take this matter to WP:RSN, and I will consider doing so for an external review. Please let me too know if there is a more suitable approach in this case. AlidPedian (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem you are not ready to admit reliable sources. The sources that I have provided clearly says Modern Standard Urdu or Standard Urdu. That is exactly why this is not a content dispute. The issue is that you editing disruptively by dismissing altogether the sources that I have provided Logosx127 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is against the term 'Standard Urdu", but you were not even ready to keep that term too. Do you remember?
    You are repeatedly selectively using the same reference, for proving 'Modern Standard Urdu'. Do you know, you are harming the article by doing that? AlidPedian (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the administrators can atleast ensure a status quo ante revert in this article considering the fact that two users, including me, have opposed the edits (source and quote removal) by AlidPedian and Fowler. Logosx127 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite my attempts to engage in a constructive discussion, you continue to overlook my messages, which suggests that you may no longer have valid evidence to support your stance. This behavior raises questions about the strength of your position. I am tired of repeatedly making the same request to you. AlidPedian (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's not much for me to say here: perhaps only that the two battling editors here, Logos* and Ali* should avoid the use of interjection "Stop," or at least lessen its use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My dear, I am not battling with him, I am just asking him to prove the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' from a well-known historian or linguist, but he is repeatedly selectively using a single source, which is not from a well-known historian or linguist. (at least from another historian, if he is not ready to have a consensus on the work of Tariq Rahman) AlidPedian (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I do agree that the predominance of the scholarly sources use only "Urdu," not "Modern Standard Urdu," I think it might be best for both of you to focus your considerable talents for a few weeks on other pages. Allow me, in my 19th year on Wikipedia, to repeat the advice (which some would say is benevolently paternalistic) I gave to other editors at ANI or ANE in this post I sincerely believe both of you and Koshuri* as well, should cut your teeth on other pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I really don't feel I need to take an advice from you on which article I should edit and which one I should not. The problem is that you are not ready to accept reliable sources but your pov original research alone. Additionally, you asked me whether I know how to read and write Urdu, didn't you?. Logosx127 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course I did, because it makes a difference in a language article. Without any knowledge of, say, Chinese language, I wouldn't edit the Chinese language article, at least not edit war, with others on the basis of only an oblique English language source. I would be a great deal more circumspect. I mentioned in my edit summary that the Natonalism volumes are edited, that you should cite also the name of the chapter author, but you simply reversed my edit. On the other hand, if I did have competence in Chinese, I wouldn't bristle if someone asked me if I knew Chinese. I would say, for example, that I took two years in college and a summer course in graduate school at Middlebury College. It is not something I would attempt to drag someone to ANI even in my dreams, especially not if I'm on the cusp of violating 3RR, the last which I have self-reverted "for now," just before the ANI
      If you think an editor who is the chief author of the fairly stable articles East India Company rule in India, Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, and the Dominion of India, i.e. the period from 1765 to 1950 during which at first Urdu prose came to be developed and much later Modern Standard Hindi, not to mention the chief author also of FA India for the period after 1950, has survived for 18 years on Wikipedia on the "pov original research alone," I'm afraid I can't help you. This is my last post here. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fowler&fowler, I really like that AE comment you linked in your previous response. It's not just good advice, but good advice kindly and empathetically delivered. I have trouble reading in the same light this insistence that someone needs to have facility in Urdu to work on the article on Urdu. Sure, it's a reasonable assumption that someone who doesn't know a language is less likely to edit the article on that language accurately, but it's just an assumption. Comment on content, not editors, is in our guidelines for a reason. If the current lead is good, it will survive a consensus discussion.
      @Logosx127, it's true that @Fowler&fowler has an obvious POV, but so do you. That's normal. The aim now is to find the consensus version that exists somewhere in between these two POVs, according to what reliable sources say about the topic. It's not "original research" to have an opinion, so please don't accuse other editors of writing WP:OR for stating what they think.
      @AlidPedian, I don't know what to make of your comment here at all. It seems to me that you are the one repeatedly using a single source - Tariq Rahman. At any rate, I do think you should take @Fowler&fowler's advice.
      @Koshuri Sultan, please don't make comments like this. We do not at all have an obligation to keep a source in an article simply because the source is academic. The edit you reverted was perfectly acceptable. If you don't like the edit, that's fine - you're welcome to discuss on the talk page about why it shouldn't be removed. But You cannot remove it is simply not true. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In my defense, I would like to clarify that I only mentioned Tariq Rahman till now, because he is not the only one who has never recognized the term 'Modern Standard Urdu'—he mostly refers to it as 'Urdu.' In fact, no well-known linguistic or historical authority acknowledges this term. That is why I requested @Logosx127 to provide a reference from a reputable historian or linguist, rather than repeatedly citing the same single source, to support the acceptance of this term. I am pleased to see that the discussion is now moving in a more constructive direction. 😊 AlidPedian (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate your advice @Asilvering. Yes, I am not a native speaker of Urdu. But I fairly understand and speak Urdu. Hindi has been my third language and I frequently talk in Urdu with Urdu speakers. @Fowler&fowler is one of the edits who is in 'Hindustani language denial'. I have absolutely no interest in proving my proficiency in Urdu. This is the first time read that it is a standard to know the language before editing on its article on Wikipedia. If that is indeed the case, I must disengage myself from language related articles other than Malayalam. Logosx127 (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      PS I agree with @Asilvering: and apologize. It did want to say that the proper citation for Logosx127's source should be:
      • Brass, Paul (2000). "Elite Groups, Symbol Manipulation, and Ethnic Identity Among Muslims of South Asia". In Hutchinson, John; Smith, Anthony D. (eds.). Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Vol. 3. New York: Routledge. pp. 879–912, 890. ISBN 9780415201124.
      They did not have the name of the author, nor the chapter title. When I asked in my edit summary during my revert, they simply reinstated their edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you just set up an RFC on the talk page to resolve your differences and determine the current consensus on this question? It's not the purpose of ANI to settle content disputes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier comments of Fowler&fowler now subsumed by an RfC
    • That may be a good idea for the other editors, but it is not for me. I have no wish to interact further with Logosx127. We are entitled to our judgments and I judged my interaction with them not to have been productive for me. I am therefore walking away from this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      PS But if someone wants to do this, they are welcome to use the sources below. There is obviously nothing called "Modern Standard Urdu." Urdu was standardized in the early 18th century. Modern Standard Hindi, on the other hand, was based on the "Khari boli" dialect, and did not come into being until the early decades of the 20th-century. The usage in the literature is: "Urdu" and "Modern Standard Hindi." No one made this clearer than my late friend Colin Paul Masica:
      • Masica, Colin P. (1993). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge Language Surveys series. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 27. ISBN 0521299446. Counted as different languages in sociocultural Sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic Sense A. They are different literary styles based on the same linguistically defined subdialect.
      Here are two more, the modern whiz of Hindi Francesca Orsini and Google ngrams:
      • Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920–1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780195650846. Urdu remained the dominant vernacular in Punjab, Delhi, and Awadh (Oudh) well into the twentieth century. The use of Khari Boli Hindi, which would later become modern standard Hindi, was more uneven
      • The Google ngram viewer for (Modern Standard Hindi,Modern Standard Urdu) gives only the graph for Modern Standard Hindi (and that too after 1960s, but says: (!) Ngrams not found: Modern Standard Urdu
      Whoever does the RfC should advertise in WT:IN, WT:Pakistan, and WT:Linguistics. All the best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:Fowler&fowler, That's simply not true. Your POV reflects an ideology that Urdu is pure and immutable. Urdu language can mean more than one thing. For example, there's a Dhaka Urdu and it is nothing but the Sanskritised variant, i.e, Hindi. Here, the nomenclature 'Urdu' clearly denotes there cultural identity. Therefore Standard Urdu is obviously the accurate nomenclature for the language that is officially defined as Urdu. Urdu has had various forms in its developmental history as well. So the name 'Modern Standard Urdu.
    Again, your claim that "There is obviously nothing called "Modern Standard Urdu."" is absolutely wrong. There are ample sources in support of the term:

    • Morphological Analysis of Modern Standard Urdu
    • The History of the Urdu Language Together with Its Origin and .... The abstract says: The objective of this paper is to briefly review the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu...
    • [228] : the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu.
    • scriptsource.org
    • [229] speaks of the modern convention that uses Hindi to mean Modern Standard Hindi, Urdu to mean Modern Standard Urdu, and Hindustani to mean the “undivided language”.
    • [230] Some languages have standard forms. The Standard form of Urdu language is Modern Standard Urdu
    • [231] Modern Standard Urdu, the formal version of the language, is deeply influenced by Arabic and Persian, reflecting centuries of cultural exchange and ...
    • [232] Modern Standard Urdu is a standardized register of the Hindustani language.
    • [233] This course is an introduction to the modern standard form of Hindi-Urdu
    • [234] Urdu is widely known as the national language of Pakistan, but it is also one of India’s 22 official languages. Modern Standard Urdu, once commonly known as a variant of Hindustani, a colloquial language combining the modified Sanskrit words found in Hindi with words brought to India via Persian, Arabic, Portuguese, Turkish and other languages, is a language with one of the most fascinating and complex histories in the world.
    • [235] It will cover basic grammar of modern standard Urdu.
    • [236] A standardised register of the Hindustani language, Modern Standard Urdu or Urdu, as it is more commonly known, is historically associated with Muslims living in the Hindustan region of the sub-continent.
    • [237]
    • Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014).Error analysis of the Urdu verb markers: a comparative study on Google and Bing machine translation platforms". Aligarh Journal of Linguistics. 4 (1–2): 1. Modern Standard Urdu, a register of the Hindustani language, is the national language, lingua-franca and is one of the two official languages along with English in Pakistan and is spoken in all over the world.

    There are multiple other google search results including:

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

    Mario0188

    [edit]
    Editor had EC rights granted and then revoked due to gaming of system. They are advised to go to WP:PERM to request this permission when they have made 500 valid edits. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Mario0188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have been aware of this for quite some time and as it has no sign of stopping, I think I need to take it here. Since January 2025, User:Mario0188 has been making hundreds of unconstructive edits to inflate their edit count. Most of these edits include adding in an emoticon [240] or other random content [241] before quickly reverting it. One look at their contributions will show hundreds (literally) of other clear examples. Doing a quick Ctrl+F, 458 of their 475 edits are of this nature.

    Both me and another user warned them towards the end of January on their talk page; no response was given and the only thing that changed was them moving to the Wikipedia sandbox rather than their own sandbox. I personally feel like this is gaming the system towards getting EC. Rambley (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Rambley,
    I have awarded and revoked this permission. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and also your attempts to warn the editor not to do this several months ago. It's too bad they didn't pay attention to your message. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP introducing trailing spaces despite warnings

    [edit]

    Despite three warnings on their Talk page, 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:34D5:E60E:9C6:247F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on introducing trailing spaces before footnotes. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Robby.is.on,
    I see warning notices on their user talk page but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong. They just warn them about "disruptive editing" which could be anything. How about forgoing the templates and write out a personal message explaining to the editor what is problematic about the way they are editing? I don't think you can expect them to change until they know what they are doing incorrectly. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong I admit I could taken more time to explain the issues in detail, for example like Meters has done since (Thanks, @Meters:!). But in the first warning I did write "Please stop introducing trailing spaces". I also explained all my reverts in edit summaries except one. After half a dozen reverts, the editor could have stopped editing to ask what was wrong with their edits instead of persisting. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After Meters' kind explanations, they're still at it, now

    Issues on Mehul Choksi

    [edit]
    SOCKS BLOCKED
    Discussion can continue at BLPN. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Mehul Choksi page has had some issues over the past two years (and especially this past week) that I believe fall under sockpuppetry, BLP, and 3RR – I don't know which noticeboard this is most appropriate for so I'm posting it here as it seems more general.

    • Sockpuppetry:
    • BLP:
      • Refbombs from unreliable-looking sources by Austintaker (diff) and Justicelyleague (diff). Most of the listed sources do not verify the contents of the sentence they are cited next to. For example (diff):

      • The Republic World has made it clear that the morning of May 24 was when the actual staged ‘kidnapping’ began.[1] At 6 am, Emmanuel and Cole arrived at North Finger to pick up Choksi.[2] He boarded the dinghy and seemed very nervous as he had bruises on the face to which Emmanuel asked is everything right but without giving any proper answer,[3] he got inside the ferry with a hope that is carefully crafted plan would work.  [4]

      • Republic World/Republic TV is a deprecated source known for spreading hoaxes and misinformation. All four citations listed are about Choksi's bail and medical issues; there is no mention of the details of his kidnapping in any of the news articles. You could pick any random paragraph and find a bunch of issues.
    • 3RR by Austintaker:
      1. diff – 09:56, March 26, 2025
      2. diff – 12:28, March 26, 2025
      3. diff – 04:57, March 27, 2025
      4. diff – 07:49, March 27, 2025
      5. diff – 04:51, March 28, 2025
      6. diff – 06:11, March 28, 2025

    The sockpuppet accounts have shown no inclination to communicate, and Austintaker has reverted at least twice more after a warning. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes. I've put ECP on it for now, so you should be free to sort it out. You might want to ask at WP:BLPN for some extra hands. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding so quickly. Would it be appropriate to ask that these two accounts be blocked, as they seem (to me) to be single-purpose accounts acting in bad faith? Iiii I I I (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They can't edit the article where they've been causing the most overt problems anymore, and I've handed out CTOP notices. So I'm inclined to leave them be for now, myself, but if someone else wants to hit them with the hammer I'm hardly going to get in the way. -- asilvering (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is a WP:BLP nightmare. Even without looking at the sourcing, it is obvious that guilt is being assumed where there has been no conviction, that (often sensationalist) opinion is being asserted in Wikipedia's voice, and that trivial detail is being spammed for no apparent reason. The entire article probably needs rewriting from scratch, by someone capable of summarising what properly-sourced biography-appropriate material is available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    looked at the history and imo some of this needs to be revdeled Localbluepikmin (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both blocked as socks. Based on what I saw when I took a look this is likely paid reputational damage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ugh the worst type of paid editing honestly why do people actually hire them when it never works Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's probably tens of thousands of attack pages floating around on en.wiki alone. A bet a fair number of them slip through the cracks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    just more work for us... come on people think of the editors!!! Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This topic is also at WP:BLPN, and should not be discussed in 2 places. GiantSnowman 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 'slipping through the cracks', I'm not the least surprised that the subject of this mess is an Indian national. Sadly, poor sourcing, grossly partisan editing, and routine violations of basic WP:BLP policy are almost the norm in that particular subset of WP's biographical content (pick e.g. bios of Indian politicians at random, and see for yourselves how long it takes to find such violations. It won't take long, and will very likely involve dubiously-sourced assertions that the individual was arrested for some serious matter a decade or more ago, accompanied by nothing to suggest that anything ever came of it). And given that the rate at which this stuff appears is grossly beyond the ability of any one individual to monitor, nobody who wishes to maintain their sanity will attempt to tackle it for long before giving up. Not so much a crack as a gaping chasm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Mehul Choksi gets bail for treatment". The Times of India. 2021-07-13. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2024-11-14.
    2. ^ "Mehul Choksi Granted $10k Bail to Seek Specialized Medical Attention in Antigua | WINNFM 98.9". 2024-11-13. Retrieved 2024-11-14.
    3. ^ "Mehul got bail "strictly for medical treatment" by Dominica's court - Writeups24". writeups24.com. 2021-07-12. Retrieved 2024-11-14.
    4. ^ "Mehul Choksi: How PNB Scam Turned A Diamond Merchant Into India's Top Wilful Defaulter". Outlook Business. 2022-12-21. Retrieved 2024-11-13.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:2600:1012:B124:C696:914F:B1EA:E645:8F7F

    [edit]

    Repeated acts of vandalism Jlktutu (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 31h off an AIV report. Left talkpage access intact but won't be surprised if that changes fast. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you taking care of that. Will keep monitoring talkpage Jlktutu (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GSansana19

    [edit]

    GSansana19 (talk · contribs) seems to be an account created with the sole purpose of disruptive editing List of Portuguese football champions adding champions that weren't, and also restoring content that violate MOS:DECOR. This action were done in past by IP's but GSansana19 created the account on March 10 and did only 4 contributions so far, all the same disruptive reversion like those IP's previously. This constitute a WP:VOA.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    uhh you forgot to add a title to your post. please add that so it isnt mistaken for being apart of the last one Localbluepikmin (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agh my wikipedia was bugging sorry bout that it didnt show it at first Localbluepikmin (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about Portuguese soccer so I can't verify for myself whether or not the Campeonato de Portugal champions that @GSansana19 added were champions or not, but if they aren't considered champions then this could be a VOA. If there's a reputable source to back it up, what GSansana could have maybe done is to create a separate article for them (I haven't checked to see if there is one already) or discussed it on the article's talk page. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already an article for Campeonato de Portugal named Taça de Portugal that is the current name. This issue is only brought by Sporting CP supporters that want their title list to be increase. They have been asking for revisionism, the last time in 2022 but Portuguese FA (Federação Portuguesa de Futebol) confirmed once again that Campeonato de Portugal winners are not Portuguese champions and this is well known by everyone who knows portuguese football. [244]. [245] 2nd link shows that official website of FPF lists Campeonato de Portugal in same level as Taça de Portugal winners, as Taça de Portugal Wikipedia article states. GSansana intention is very clear. He can't present any source because there aren't, and the text contradicts the Taça de Portugal article. Besides you can see that the account was only created to make this disruptive edit. He has no other intention. Not a single edition besides reverting to this false version.Rpo.castro (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Snehaoberoi advertising escorts

    [edit]
    ESCORTED OFF THE SITE
    Indef block by user:Floquenbeam — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Diffs:

    13:52, 28 March 2025 "We provide services by Call Girls, College Girls, Housewife, Aunties & Modals. Get High Profile queens , Well Educated , Good Looking , Full Cooperative Model."

    13:43, 28 March 2025 "We provide services by Call Girls, College Girls, Housewife, Aunties & Modals. Get High Profile queens , Well Educated , Good Looking , Full Cooperative Model."

    holy jesus, please block them the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I blocked them, but I'm not Holy Jesus. I revdel'd one, Ks0stm deleted the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I think it's wonderful that they provide modals along with their other services. Possibly some grammarians or copyeditors picking up extra income? EEng 21:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by IP

    [edit]
    Blocked by Izno. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Normally I'd report someone after several more warnings, but their behavior seems awfully similar to that of 116.86.53.37 (talk · contribs), who was blocked a couple of months back for disruption (editing plot summaries contrary to guidelines, unsourced additions, and unexplained ENGVAR changes).

    Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to assume they are the same person, but I agree that the similarities are strong. Here's a diff from 116.86.53.37 as an example. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible block evasion on Boot camp (correctional)

    [edit]

    There have been at least four previously blocked WP:SPAs on Boot camp (correctional) that keep adding the same content. It looks like a textbook WP:RGW situation, but it would be good to get experienced eyes on this if it's also WP:BLOCKEVASION.

    -Amigao (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty blatant block evasion. Making the exact same edits; The current account ("Human rights promoter") was created one day after "DonaldJuniorTrump" was blocked.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me and accordingly blocked. In the future, WP:SPI should be where you take this sort of thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption of Boot camp (correctional) goes back quite a while. I semi-protected the article for 90 days on January 26. I encourage adminstrators and other editors to put this article on their watch lists and to act promptly at any sign of disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revoke TPA for Ordonnia

    [edit]
    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ordonnia was blocked as a VOA and is using their talk page for vandalism. Could a sysop revoke their TPA? This is one of the many sockpuppets of the sockmaster and LTA NeverForgetToGoAround. They asked for it. Any sysop that is going to block an LTA account must include the parameter of talk page access being revoked. 24.55.33.220 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. TPA revoked. – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent misinformation and disruption by 183.99.45.103

    [edit]

    Special:Contributions/183.99.45.103 has been on a rampage across locomotive articles. Their favorite activity is to violate MOS:SOB by changing links like ALCO 244 to ALCO 12-244, which is annoying on its own, but more malicious is their intentional addition of misinformation by messing with production numbers and dates. Most recently, they've been adding misinformation that the EMD SD40X had 12 units built [246], including in 1979; a quick glance at page 72 of Louis A. Marre's Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years shows this is BS; 9 were built between 1964 and 1965. Same story at GE Dash 8-40BW, where they're changing the production count from the correct 84 to the fake 156 [247]; Greg McDonnell's Field Guide to Modern Diesel Locomotives makes it clear on page 36 that the 156 number is bogus. They're also a fan of making all sorts of changes to production numbers with no sources, such as here: [248]. This IP editor will edit war to keep their blatantly false / MOS violating edits on articles; as I speak they're edit warring at EMD GP39 with 4 reverts in one day [249] [250] [251] [252].

    They've also edited under Special:Contributions/2001:e60:3120:f2c::2a20:98a4 recently. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Caught another example: adding the fictitious production count of 156 to MLW M-420 [253]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted on AIV about this IP before seeing this. This LTA tends to IP-hop a lot - see the history of EMD GP39. Might be worth a long block on 183.99.40.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as that hits several years of socks with no collateral damage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the /21 range for a month. Editors from this range never seem to explain themselves on talk pages and they trigger the edit filter constantly. If you have a list of articles that ought to be semiprotected let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion on 71.35.0.0/19

    [edit]
    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The ranges were too narrow, we have to block /19. Maybe it should be globally blocked, might be a proxy.

    Current and previous IPs:

    The vandal repeatedly blanked the user talk pages, check their history for a long list of final warnings. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    GiantSnowball2026

    [edit]

    Can somebody please review GiantSnowball2026 (talk · contribs) - name very similar to mine, one of their first edits was to create Draft:Darragh Power which is similar to my pre-existing User:GiantSnowman/Darragh Power. I suspect it's somebody I've blocked/warned and they've taken umbrage, but no idea who. Perhaps a checkuser would help? GiantSnowman 21:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1283024776"