Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
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. 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) |
पाटलिपुत्र ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.
For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [1] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.
These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;
Recently, a user voiced their concern [27] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [28]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [29]. Other recent examples are these [30] [31] [32] [33]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [34].
Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
little textual information about this ruler(which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The most obvious architectural form that was adopted in Armenian churches was the muqarnas vault. A fine example is the complex muqarnas that was used to build up the central vault of the zhamatun at Harichavank, which was added to the main church in the monastery by 1219. The origin of this type of vaulting clearly comes from Islamic sources, but it is used very differently here.
And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.
And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)"What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)"Fakhr-i Mudabbir's remarks draw our attention to the linguistic and cultural distance between the lords and the members of the realm they governed, so much so that Persian-speaking secretaries -"the grandees of the highest pedigree"- had to master a "foreign" language to function as their subordinates. (...) So remarks like those of Madabbir refer to the advantages that knowledge of the Turkish language conferred upon a Persian subordinate in the service of the Delhi Sultanate."
— Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.
Frenchprotector29 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [65]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [66] [67] [68] [69] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.
These issues have included: Edit warring: [79] [80] [81] [82] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [83] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [84] [85] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [86] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted ( talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask
Simonm223 and
Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me,
this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like
this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion.
GabberFlasted (
talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:
There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible ( talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered."I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic."
oopsie VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)and insists on his personal opinions
Oppose topic ban : I think that Researcher1988 should not be topic banned, they are a knowledgeable editor about that topic, they tried to provide sources but in my humble opinion, some other editors seem to show ownership and refuse to go by what our best sources say, trying to contradict said best sources with weaker ones.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin be willing to have a look at the clear consensus here and formalize it please? Those of us editing the page would like to move on with the cleanup work on the article. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.
There are the principles of discussion on talk pages of Wikipedia, such as Communicate ( WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE), Stay on topic ( WP:TALK#TOPIC), Be positive ( WP:TALK#POSITIVE), Be polite, Make proposals ( WP:TALK#PROPOSE), etc., that the user User:AirshipJungleman29 did not follow.
I am not competent in interpreting Wikipedia rules, therefore I ask for help. Let me describe the situation so that you could make a fair conclusion. The discussion was at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1219457528&oldid=1219300767 (diff), or see [102].
Generally, User:AirshipJungleman29 engages in a discussion by making an argument but then declines to discuss the argument they made, switching the topic or using subjective terms such as "tedious" to characterize my arguments. If they find my arguments inappropriate or not worth discussing, they should not engage me in a discussion. But if they presented their opinion, they should have respect to my arguments in favour or against their opinion. They should not expect their opinion to be final and indiscussable. They should have respect to the other editors this way.
Specifically, in a Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix I made a proposal to present data in a GA nominees in a user-friendlier manner and gave arguments on what I thought a usability (design) error in presenting the information on counters. Instead of discussing on substance, such as whether the current counters are correctly displayed or they are not, or whether the proposal of me or another user is a correct way do display data; or whether the change the way of displaying data is worth implementing. Instead of discussing the substance, User:AirshipJungleman29 first objected on form, quote: ("Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site"). When I asked User:AirshipJungleman29 to provide an example of this proposal in a form they find proper, they ignored and instead didn't stay on topic but raised a new topic that I and a user which was later blocked violate GA review rules. When I argued against this claim of User:AirshipJungleman29, they again avoided the discussion on substance but threatened me with ANI: "And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI". This is not a constructive way of discussing. If they didn't want any argument from me, they should not engage me in a discussion, but if they did, they should treat my reply with respect - this is in accordance of the "dot not fuel" principle ( WP:DENY). By fuelling the discussion in that they do not intend to duly participate, moreover, ANI treats for "tediousness" is an intentionally toxic behaviour that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia talk.
User:AirshipJungleman29 violates the essence of a healthy discussion, which is the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be open to different perspectives and respecting the arguments of others, even if they differ from one's own.
When User:AirshipJungleman29 chooses to characterize my arguments as "tedious" rather than addressing them on their merits, it undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Everyone's contributions or opinions are valuable and deserve to be treated with respect.
Moreover, the use of threats, such as the threat to open a thread at ANI, can create a hostile environment that discourages open discussion. Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation.
The principle of WP:DENY, or "do not fuel", emphasizes the importance of not engaging in unproductive discussions. If User:AirshipJungleman29 does not intend to participate constructively in the discussion, it may be best to disengage and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia in other ways.
Thank you! Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Quoting statements with diffs: In this discussion, AirshipJungleman29's comments to Maxim Masiutin:
Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes".
Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking".
No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions.
And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning.
Other editors also disagreed with Maxim's proposal but not with such contempt exasperation. edited to repair my initial word choice which I thought about overnight and decided was overly judgemental.
Schazjmd
(talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Examples
|
---|
|
Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me, but I have to admit that I agree. More than 700 words to complain that someone was mean to you on the internet! Sealioning indeed. You say
if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way, but is that really true? I look at all of the exasperated responses AJ29 brought to this thread. Have they changed your behaviour? Do you know why people are annoyed with you? -- asilvering ( talk) 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead.Wow--talk about shooting oneself in the foot when claiming others are the problem. Clearly needs a break from GAN (or it needs a break from them), at the very least. Grandpallama ( talk) 01:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and editor time is our most valuable resource. The diffs provided by Schazjmd show that Maxim Masiutin has been a major timesink and has already exhausted the patience of numerous editors at WP:GAN. In this thread, even those editors who have been somewhat sympathetic to Maxim Masiutin have still acknowledged that AirshipJungleman29's frustration is both understandable and justified; that feeling of exasperation has expanded to include uninvolved editors participating in this discussion. I propose a 6-month topic ban for Maxim Masiutin from WP:GAN and its talkpage. Grandpallama ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
In composing, as a general rule, run your pen through every other word you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give your style.
If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment." NebY ( talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation). After uninvolved editors explained me when I am wrong, I thanked and proposed to abstain for at least a year from GAN talk, which is a kind of topic ban volunteerly accepted. Therefore, I don't understand some points: (1) why editors need discuss a topic ban for a lesser period (6 months), it is for the proportionality of punishment principe to put a lower punishment instead; (2) isn't letting the discussion go the waste of people time when it could be concluded a few days ago already on my proposal to abstain from GAN talk; (3) why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI threat, and checking my actions and punishing them if needed was my initial intent of this ANI complaint, isn't a waste of people time to cyclically add and remove such a boomerang shop picture? Wikipedia is still a big puzzle for me. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand that boomerang is when your complaint backfires but this is not my case where I explicitly asked to check my behavior and literally filled an AI against myself on behalf of AirshipJungleman29That's not true. Literally the first sentence of this filing:
Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.Grandpallama ( talk) 13:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Bringing to attention the chronic refusal by Visnu92 to discuss his persistent addition of Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones in Malaysia ( [109] and [110]). Discussion had been opened in WikiProject Malaysia as there had been no guidelines on Chinese and Tamil scripts in infrastructure-related articles, but said user has repeatedly ignored discussions eventhough he was tagged, a clear-cut refusal to seek consensus. hundenvonPG ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abhirup2441139 has in the space of c 24 hrs created five copies of Draft:Arup Das under different titles as well as on their user page and sandbox, most with significant copyvios. I believe there is also a COI issue, which the user has not responded to (they also implied as much, by saying that they got the permission to use "all the materials" from the family of the person in question). Finally, there is now a new account Ad1959 joining the fray (and offering to report me to "authorities"), which I suspect is a puppet of some variety. Could we please apply some brakes here? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Should we be concerned about this edit in the context of the one made immediately after? — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Baratiiman ( talk · contribs) has made multiple instances of mistranslated statements, incoherent grammar raising serious questions about their WP:CIR and WP:OR that had been flagged by editors over a period of time but has refused to address the issue despite several warnings on their talk page. Their latest target has been 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, where they have added material that is not supported by sources and falsely accuse me of censorship in the talk page. See
For further reference, I am also showing multiple complaints that they had from me and other users over their editing, which they have never addressed, as well as other examples of questionable editing. I have already raised this in ANI early this year but no action was taken:
For WP:CIR, a check of their contributions would find that a majority of their edits are badly written.
Borgenland ( talk) 13:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Single-purpose account promoting Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, ignoring past discussion at Talk:Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi#Content written like an advertisement * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
For the past 2 years, an incredibly disruptive user has been vandalizing pages related to South Asian topics; with their primary MO to inflate census numbers in favour of their religion, write general statements which aggrandize their language, Punjabi ethnicity, and religion, and to include the Ravidassia religion as part of Sikhism (Ravidassias were formerly a schismatic faction within Sikhism, after an attack on one of their temples and religious leaders, they split off from the Sikh religion and compiled their own religious book)
They primarily use various 93*IPs which geolocate to Italy; some of their ranges include: 93.33.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.32.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.36.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.45.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) etc. Hundreds of individual IPs within these ranges have been blocked (often for a short duration of time) for repeated vandalism + disruption.
They recently created an account called DeraBallanOfficial, pretending to be the official representative of an apex Ravidas institution. Their user page promotes a fringe theory about the aforementioned attack on the Ravidas temple, which they've incorporated into their edits as well- [130], [131], [132]. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
"DeraBallanOfficial" sounds like it is a straight up WP:UPOL violation whether they were legitimately an official representative of Dela Ballan or not. -- D'n'B- t -- 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
They also have a lot to say about me personally, so I'd rather not respond myself any further. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zimidar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) enough rope given, seems to be here just to promote their clients. 95.107.255.234 ( talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please remove TPA, there are WP:CIR issues and general misuse of TPA. Courtesy ping @ ToBeFree. v/r - Seawolf35 T-- C 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to call attention to M.Bitton and what seems to be an intractable pattern of WP:OWNership and civil POV-pushing. I considered the edit warring noticeboard or DR (3O has already failed), but decided to come to ANI because this appears to be a longstanding pattern.
We have been talking for some time and his responses have been increasingly indefensible as he continues to wholesale revert any change to shakshouka. The article came to my attention because one of my randomly-assigned wiki-mentees asked for help. At first I thought M.Bitton was just a bit impatient and bitey with this newbie (I expressed that concern here), but I am now concerned that there is a much larger problematic pattern of behaviour. In this content dispute, M.Bitton has ignored this 3O and repeatedly reverted full-article edits over a single word in the lead: [140] [141] [142], refusing to engage constructively on the talk page: [143] [144] [145] [146]. I particularly want to highlight their response after that last revert, where they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources I had in fact just used: [147] [148] They appear to address my suggested edits here (apparently reading my contribution for the first time after reverting it) but not in a constructive spirit.
Their talk page history suggests that they have a pattern of obstructionism: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] Especially worrisome to me are the edit summaries, where M.Bitton responds to these requests for more constructive editing by calling them insults. I got curious about whether this was a pattern; in addition to their block log, searching M.Bitton's name at ANI suggests that the Maghreb topic area has led them into conflict before: 2023 2023 2021 2021 2015
All of this suggests that there are major problems that have been going on for a long time. I truly do not care about shakshuka and am only trying to resolve, using academic sources, the content issue that my mentee was struggling with; nevertheless, I have been accused of POV-pushing and have found the article impossible to edit. Could an admin please investigate? ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 06:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
We have been talking for some timeno we haven't. While I have been making proposals on how to improve the article, your only input has been in response to the POV that you've been trying to impose through an edit war. Your first so-called bold edit involved a revert of Skitash's edit that sidelined my proposal and ignored everything that was said on the TP.
M.Bitton has ignored this 3Othat's a lie! see my response them.
they tell me I must base my edits on the three sourcesthat's another lie. Here's what suggested (inviting others to provide the needed RS).
They appear to address my suggested edits... not in a constructive spirit.the serious concerns that I raised with regard to your misrepresentation of the sources speak for themselves (there are others that I will highlight once you start responding). Understandably, it's a lot easier to run to ANI than to justify the unjustifiable. M.Bitton ( talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find[155] before my first rewrite and
As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go)[156] before my second rewrite. Why should M.Bitton be allowed to (theoretically) do a full rewrite and not me? ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Since registration, @ Countscarter has been adding unsourced content along with providing little to no communication with other editors, including the near-total lack of edit summaries. They were also in a brief edit war over the article for Fixed (such as here), providing no references for justification and insisted on their edits through word of mouth. They have been warned for their actions about eight times (mostly for this month), including by me. After recent unsourced contributions on The Ark and the Aardvark ( here) and Universal Pictures Home Entertainment ( here), I decided I can no longer assume good faith in this user.
I've been tracking and mostly reverting Countscarter's edits for about a couple of weeks now since finding one of their contributions suspicious, although I have forgotten the initial article that grabbed my attention. I initially made a report on the Teahouse before moving to here out of suggestion by @ Tenryuu and then deciding to wait afterwards to give another chance. Unfortunately, in the eight days since the Teahouse report, I found little to no improvements in Countscarter's editing, with only about a couple of edits (such as with here, albeit reverted) using sources. Lastly to note they've made dozens of such edits on Scene It?; I suggest someone review the article's quality since there's too many edits to focus on briefly. If I have done anything unintentionally out of malice, please let me know. Carlinal ( talk) 21:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The account Ayush219 ( talk · contribs · count) was registered earlier this week and started editing today, and immediately went on to mass replace Bhumihar (which is a caste in India) with Bhumihar Brahmin, i.e., claiming a specific social status for that caste (despite a lack of consensus for that status in multiple discussions at Talk:Bhumihar). The user did not stop their mass changes despite multiple reverts and several warnings posted to their Talk. When finally stopped, their responses were far from collaborative; while their response to a routine CT notice was essentially a PA. Is it only me that feel they are here only to promote their own caste and not to build an encylopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
But there should be people belonging to that community also. Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personalmake it appear that you consider the Bhumihar caste "very personal", and so I responded politely pointing you to our policies about the conflict of interest. I don't think your aggressive tone is warranted, and I don't feel you understand what Wikipedia is about. — kashmīrī TALK 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Ayush219, please be aware that accusing another editor of racial supremacy
and saying that the editor is against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them
is a very grave matter here on Wikipedia. You are expected to immediately provide convincing evidence in the form of
diffs showing quite clearly that the other editor is misbehaving that way. You have thusfar failed to do so. Unsubstantiated accusations like this consitite
personal attacks and failure to
Assume good faith, both of which are blockable offenses. Please be aware that
Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups imposes heightened responsibilities on editors contributing to all
caste,
Jāti and
Varna (Hinduism) related articles. You must now do one of two things: Either provide convincing evidence of actual misconduct by
Kashmiri, or unambiguously withdraw your accusations. Caste warriors are simply not welcome on the Engish Wikipedia. The choice between those two options is yours.
Cullen328 (
talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal, which is of course nonsense, does not make it so. That community is nearly 4 million strong, so 'small' is in the eye of the beholder, but regardless, COI is more about WP:PAID (loose and outright), so it would not apply here. Now, if they were part of an org benefiting from such edits, that'd be different. So I'd urge you to be more judicious when invoking it (especially since there's no reason to do so and it only muddies the waters). Thanks. El_C 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
On three separate occasions [157] [158] [159], User:John Foxe has removed maintenance tags while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. In the third instance, the editor was reminded of the policy and did it anyway [160]. The editor is highly experienced, having been on Wikipedia since 2006 and should know better than to engage in disruptive editing.-- User:Namiba 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I recently got "partially blocked" from CopyPatrol by JJMC89. I am writing to ask for someone to please review this block.
I am not here to "play games", or mess around with Wikipedia. All I wanted to do was help. I want to make it clear that I want to be a good contributor to the encyclopedia and I am happy to learn from my mistakes.
I understand that I have made some mistakes when using it, such as not following up on the copyright violations, and I am very willing to learn from this. However, I did not expect to be blocked completely and have a black mark on my record. I feel that this block is disproportionate given my actions. Particularly, I tried my best to use the tool properly. I know that this tool is not a toy. I think that it would be a lot better if I were informed of my mistakes, prior to such a block being imposed against me. I am more than happy to do more reading to further understand the tool prior to using it again.
Thank you in advance for reviewing my block and I look forward to a response regarding this. WizardGamer775 ( talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What exactly is urgent about this or what is the behavioral issue, other than your own, which resulted in your pblock? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to report user Cfls for their poor editing behavior, including large-scale deletions, bias, and lack of good faith in discussions. Cfls has been involved in numerous disputes on talk pages regarding editing decisions on Chinese academic institutions, university classifications, and content deletions. Their editing behavior has resulted in the loss of valuable content.
Some specific issues are:
1. Large-scale deletions: Cfls has repeatedly removed large amounts of content from articles like Fudan University, Shanghai University, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They have deleted well-sourced historical information and replaced it with minimal introductory paragraphs, significantly impacting the quality and comprehensiveness of these articles.
2. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Policies: The user often justifies these deletions by citing WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:BOOSTER, but fails to provide concrete explanations for why specific content violates these policies. They have removed references to reputable sources like Times Higher Education and Shanghai Ranking, claiming they don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, which contradicts established consensus on these sources. They appears to misinterpret policies like WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV to justify removing factual information and descriptive language.
3. Lack of good faith: Cfls often replies to criticism with long, passive-aggressive paragraphs (possibly generated by ChatGPT) and dismissive comments. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions, Cfls avoids addressing specific concerns and accuses others of bias or not understanding Wikipedia policies.
4. Talk Page Misuse: Cfls is now frequently emptying their talk page by marking discussions as "archived," even though these disputes are clearly not settled, which seems to be an attempt to avoid criticism. This behavior raises doubts about their good faith.
I kindly request that administrators review the editing history and talk page discussions of Cfls, and take appropriate actions (such as warnings, topic bans, or blocks) based on their findings. 61.224.112.80 ( talk) 05:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
passive-aggressiveabout this - if anything, it is the opposite, as the text is very informative and links to several policies and is also open to other views. As Dennis Brown pointed out, your best bet would be to go to the talk page of all the articles and come to a compromise. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? -
Continuously uploading undesirable posters of Vijay films. I believe the poster used should be the original release poster, but he uses re-release and teaser ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The following IP as well as user has been adding nonsensical/opinionated text to the Tarek Loubani article. You can see their additions in the lede as well as later in the article regarding Loubani being shot in the leg.
Looking at the article history, you can see that Editor1249339333's initial additions were reverted by an IP and were added again. After I went ahead and reverted it myself, the IP 142.198.108.139 would once again add everything back, even after being warned by myself in both their talk page and in my edit comment.
Given the fact that their only edits are on the article about him, it's clear that the sole purpose of this IP & account is to attack Tarek Loubani. I'm requesting somebody with the authority to either lock the article, block the account/IP, or anything else that would be suitable for this. Thanks, B3251 ( talk) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! This is for @ Smalljim: your talk page is semi-protected so I have no other way of contacting you.
You recently blocked Kiss.immak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WelshDragoon19 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – both are obvious vandalism-only accounts: Kiss is an anti-Israel edit warrior, Dragoon is an sockpuppeting LTA and harasser.
I am at a loss as to why both only got 31 hours off. In 31 hours, both will clearly be back doing the same edits again. This, to me, seems insane. 92.17.14.64 ( talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
You are both well past Wp:3RR on your edits. There's no obvious vandalism so any accusations of such, and valid reversion are invalid. And if you're reverting an article to a previous version, you're indeed endorsing that version especially when you do it multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Last year, Justin L. 1230 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made hundreds of minor edits that are an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING EC, such as editing articles by adding a single letter at a time (e.g. [174] [175]). They are now making contentious edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area [176]. Can their EC status be revoked? Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This account appeared out of nowhere and was EXTREMELY active with page moves, racking up more than 19,000 edits in just 3 months, many of them article page moves. Most of the article page moves that occurred were abbreviations of the article subjects name, either dropping middle names or middle initials or other changes that served to shorten the article subject's proper name. I had some great suspicions about this account and brought them up on User talk:Nirva20 several times. I even mentioned my doubts to other editors/admins but without going through the article references myself, I couldn't easily verify that these page titles were improper and I didn't have the time to investigate the dozens of article page moves they did on a daily basis. I watch the Move log and they were a high volume page mover, I'd say many of their large edit count were page moves, all of them biographies.
They've now been identified as a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and I'm just wondering if there should be a review of their page moves. I'm not familiar with Rms125a@hotmail.com so I don't know if they were basically a competent editor and we can rely on these being valid page moves or not. I understand that this would be a big project to undertake but maybe there are editors who like projects like this. If on the other hand, Rms125a@hotmail.com was a good editor blocked for behavioral reasons, perhaps this is unnecessary so I'm calling on longtimers who have a good memory for your opinion on this. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hate message left [177] after warning them for several vandalizing edits [178] [179] ArkHyena ( talk) 04:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Repeat vandalism of Magnetar [180] [181] despite being blocked recently over persistent vandalism of the same page and, vandalism of Mons pubis [182]. Protection of Magnetar may be needed. ArkHyena ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Not asking for action on any specific editor here at least, but the situation in terms of behavior at the Havana syndrome talk page really needs some admin help in terms of WP:TPNO to tone things down. This section is the most indicative of how bad it has gotten.
The majority of comments in that section don't even deal with content anymore and are moreso WP:BATTLEGROUND potshots making those of us who were watching this on the periphery at noticeboards pretty much unable to help with anything. I tried commenting once about the personal attacks on the talk page and to knock it off, but it's just escalating anyways given the talk page history this morning, so I don't want to wade into the talk page anymore in that state.
A lot of the underlying issues center around edit warring. Large-scale edit warring was going on earlier, especially WP:ONUS policy violations. It got so bad the page was protected for two weeks by EdJohnston in the hopes that editors would propose specific content and do an RfC if needed on that rather than keep trying to directly add content back in. The latter happened recently instead after protection expired without consensus on specific content. Instead there's a lot of lashing out in the battleground comments against the basic concept that editors need to get consensus on disputed content, especially after page protection, so I'd just ask admins to keep an eye out for those comments escalating the battleground atmosphere there rather than working on the content. This one has felt like pulling teeth between the ONUS issues and battleground comments, so hopefully tamping that down might make the topic more accessible for uninvolved editors. KoA ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
You may participate in the relevant discussions on the talk page instead of casting aspersions.. [191]
unhelpful and unwelcomeand harassment [193] [194]
However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing). Obviously those discussions are approached cautiously, but so far it appears that was broached to you reasonably.
The other snide remarks I removed were harassment.That does not justify the sniping you engage in on the article talk page, but couching others bringing up issues with your behavior in proper venues as harassment is avoidance and hallmark tendentious editing. My suggestion is to step back from the topic entirely and avoid controversial topics in order to learn the ropes about behavior norms, edit warring, etc., especially when it comes to battleground mentality. That's me trying to give you a pathway that avoids sanctions, and I'm not out to get you here. Sometimes people course-correct and eventually can return to collegial editing on their own when given advice like that, and others unfortunately just lash out instead. With the way you're heading at that page though with this degree of WP:IDHT about one's own behavior, often times the only option the community has left is sanctions when all else fails. KoA ( talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Back in the drawer. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello there! I need your help. A guy named Sportsfan 1234 continues to investigate sockpuppets of the other account named Raymarcbadz and insists the admins block all the socks connected to the master. The editing of Olympic-related articles has been a major issue since June. He favored the users to ban the sock master and the other accounts from editing. Yet, he continues to baffle the socks and the sockmaster without any further reason. He never replies nor entertains my questions and comments. He destroyed the reputation of the user who spent 16 years editing Wikipedia articles. We need your help to stop and address this nonsensical issue. Thank you! DayangHirang4405 ( talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User refuses to stop adding ridiculous PRODs ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) to articles after being warned several times, continues to insist every article is "vandalism" or a "troll page." Also has months of spam edits and pointless reverts. Almost all of their edits are vandalism. Swinub ( talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 198.166.141.10) has been rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation. Some of the reverts were like this one related to the issue of "supported by" in conflict infoboxes. That was an issue that led to Rembo01 being blocked for IP-socking. But 198.166.141.10 was also rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation on 5 December 2023, and the IP is from Canada, whereas the IPs that Rembo01 was suspected of using were from Indonesia. I suspect that 198.166.141.10's activities are unrelated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The paid editor Topg1985 has been tendentiously persisting in working on a draft that was Rejected by an AFC reviewer (and in my opinion the rejection was appropriate) after being declined six times, mostly because a deletion discussion had already found that the subject of the article does not meet notability. As the nomination in the AFD shows, articles about the subject have been repeatedly created since 2020, probably also by his agency's paid editors by the gaming of titles. Topg1985 has now been a nuisance at the AFC Help Desk (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#20:42,_21_April_2024_review_of_submission_by_Topg1985).
Topg1985 continued working on the rejected draft after being explicitly told to stop working on it because it was rejected, at which point the reviewer,
User:HouseBlaster, nominated the draft for deletion. But MFD is a content forum, and the user's conduct should also be dealt with. Topg1985 also told
User:Theroadislong to stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best
, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FHelp_desk&diff=1220258953&oldid=1220256037
The allegation of trolling is a
personal attack.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has severe civility problems on Talk:Fraser Island including failure to abide by the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct (mandated by ToS) and ad hominem at contributors whom they disagree with. Since I've been directly involved, can someone else take a look at it? -- SHB2000 ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently Sirfurboy refuses to hear anything, repeating the same disproved arguments over and over. Summer92 ( talk) 09:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
In case of content disputes I'd try to discuss it on the talk page, and if that doesn't work I'll go to ANI or other appropriate boards.[196] NebY ( talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis in original), which I'm not seeing at Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation 2. You should use WP:DR to determine next steps; a page that an administrator requested you read. I'd advise withdrawing this complaint and moving on. (Non-administrator comment) — Sirdog ( talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The user Is made by people like started making threats at me on their talk page by threatening me to k*ll myself after I politely warned them that they need to cite a reliable source. I told them this, and said that if they keep making threats like this, I would notify the administrators. However, as you'll see on their talk page, they continue to call me a liar and tell me to die. Is it possible to state an indefinite block for this user? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 09:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8490:12E0:0:0:0:0/64 - pretty much all edits from this IP range are ideological BLP vandalism. There aren't that many edits and they're quickly reverted, but this has been going on for over a year now and it's all coming from the same person. Avessa ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CPSisoAisha is WP:NOTHERE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Can someone have a word with Mets1013! who has now, for a second time, moved War in Afghanistan to a disambiguation page and thence onto a page with a period/full stop on it? I moved them back once already, but I am not going to move war when both of their unilaterally chosen titles are wrong: one has an unnecessary disambiguator, and the other uses punctuation. I have advised them against this. They continued, with no explanation. It is bizarre, considering this must be one of our highest-viewed articles, and I can't really see the point. But when accidental disruption becomes a deliberate disruption, I suppose the point ceases to matter. ——Serial Number 54129 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I request administrative action against User:Mteiritay for their repeated unsubstantiated deletions of sourced content at Sulaiman Bek, or, alternatively, a protection of that specific page - whatever you see fit. I tried to discuss their objections thoroughly at the article's talk page and went through both the WP:RfC and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sulaiman Bek processes, where they were unwilling to engage properly. The conflict on the page is ongoing since March 31 now and the user has proven their unwillingness to either engage in a constructive discussion or accept the sourced changes. As I don't believe an edit war would help here to move the issue to the responsible noticeboard, I don't see another way than requesting admin intervention.
Finally, I'd like to thank you for all the time-consuming voluntary work you are doing to keep Wikipedia a good place. I imagine it to be tiring at times; I surely am tired by this conflict; the issue is not even that important to me - I just invested so much time in this already that I feel like I can't just quit now.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Someone using IPs from Sydney has been adding unsupported recording dates in music articles, especially songs by Crowded House, Sting, Billy Idol and INXS. [197] [198] [199] They have also changed release dates with no reference. This has been happening for more than a year, [200] [201] [202] but has recently become much more disruptive. The behavior includes edit-warring at the same articles; Special:Contributions/1.145.116.112 broke 3RR on one day in March. The IPs change frequently, with six IPs including Special:Contributions/1.145.74.230 used in less than one hour today. The IPs also span a wide range—a /21 group and a huge /16 group. If we block these ranges there will be collateral damage. Is there a way we can target this vandal more precisely? Pinging Ss112 who has also been dealing with this disruption. Binksternet ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that Special:Contributions/1.145.104.250 was blocked two weeks ago, but the style of that editor is different. They focused on music sales chart results and certifications. Binksternet ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Jonharojjashi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.
Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [203], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.
These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [204] [205], but they were mostly fruitless.
Jonharojjashi more or less restored [240] the unsourced edit [241] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.
In made response to my previous ANI [242], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [243] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as " WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.
There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Scott Adams has taken to Xitter to complain about an article I created, on the nonexistent "turbo cancer". Can I please ask people to watchlist. I will brace for incoming shit because my RWI is easily established, and Adams is beloved of deranged fuckwits. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
User Cjhard demonstrating WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating Wikipedia as a battleground". User first began performing repeated reverts on South Park: Joining the Panderverse involving critical reviews, which has already escalated to a WP:DRN. When given his first WP:3RR on the subject, his edit summary included the phrase "Do not edit my talk page again." Since then, he has (purposefully?) made changes to another article I have been involved with, The Pandemic Special, a subject which he had previously had no interest in prior to our interactions. The edits he has been making on this article are reverting a clear violation of WP:NOTBROKEN where another editor was adding a pipe to a redirect. He has been purposefully undoing these reversions with his edit summaries indicating that he believes this is also a difference of opinion. Furthermore, his edit summaries include other WP:PA, including "cross the bright red line, SanAnmAN, and "Please do. In the meantime I made myself pretty clear last time. Fuck off.". It is apparent to me that he is engaged in personal attacks on me. - SanAnMan ( talk) 00:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed with alarm that User:ElijahPepe has been creating one-sentence stubs and expecting others to do the work of filling them out. ElijahPepe has autopatrolled, and I believe this pattern of page creations to be inconsistent with the standards we expect of editors with this permission. His creations should be reviewed by new page patrollers, especially since so many have ultimately been redirected. He also cannot be bothered to add any categories to his article creations, which is really the bare minimum for an experienced editor.
Examples:
I could name many more examples, but I think I've made my point. Elijah should not have the autopatrolled user right, as it is for editors whose contributions can be expected to have no issues. To be clear I am not expecting anyone to be writing GA-level articles right off the bat, but at minimum they should be writing a few sentences and including more than one reference - this is a low bar to clear. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
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. 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) |
पाटलिपुत्र ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.
For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [1] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.
These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;
Recently, a user voiced their concern [27] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [28]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [29]. Other recent examples are these [30] [31] [32] [33]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [34].
Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
little textual information about this ruler(which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The most obvious architectural form that was adopted in Armenian churches was the muqarnas vault. A fine example is the complex muqarnas that was used to build up the central vault of the zhamatun at Harichavank, which was added to the main church in the monastery by 1219. The origin of this type of vaulting clearly comes from Islamic sources, but it is used very differently here.
And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.
And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)"What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)"Fakhr-i Mudabbir's remarks draw our attention to the linguistic and cultural distance between the lords and the members of the realm they governed, so much so that Persian-speaking secretaries -"the grandees of the highest pedigree"- had to master a "foreign" language to function as their subordinates. (...) So remarks like those of Madabbir refer to the advantages that knowledge of the Turkish language conferred upon a Persian subordinate in the service of the Delhi Sultanate."
— Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.
Frenchprotector29 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [65]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [66] [67] [68] [69] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.
These issues have included: Edit warring: [79] [80] [81] [82] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [83] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [84] [85] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [86] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted ( talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask
Simonm223 and
Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me,
this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like
this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion.
GabberFlasted (
talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:
There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible ( talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered."I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic."
oopsie VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)and insists on his personal opinions
Oppose topic ban : I think that Researcher1988 should not be topic banned, they are a knowledgeable editor about that topic, they tried to provide sources but in my humble opinion, some other editors seem to show ownership and refuse to go by what our best sources say, trying to contradict said best sources with weaker ones.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin be willing to have a look at the clear consensus here and formalize it please? Those of us editing the page would like to move on with the cleanup work on the article. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.
There are the principles of discussion on talk pages of Wikipedia, such as Communicate ( WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE), Stay on topic ( WP:TALK#TOPIC), Be positive ( WP:TALK#POSITIVE), Be polite, Make proposals ( WP:TALK#PROPOSE), etc., that the user User:AirshipJungleman29 did not follow.
I am not competent in interpreting Wikipedia rules, therefore I ask for help. Let me describe the situation so that you could make a fair conclusion. The discussion was at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1219457528&oldid=1219300767 (diff), or see [102].
Generally, User:AirshipJungleman29 engages in a discussion by making an argument but then declines to discuss the argument they made, switching the topic or using subjective terms such as "tedious" to characterize my arguments. If they find my arguments inappropriate or not worth discussing, they should not engage me in a discussion. But if they presented their opinion, they should have respect to my arguments in favour or against their opinion. They should not expect their opinion to be final and indiscussable. They should have respect to the other editors this way.
Specifically, in a Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix I made a proposal to present data in a GA nominees in a user-friendlier manner and gave arguments on what I thought a usability (design) error in presenting the information on counters. Instead of discussing on substance, such as whether the current counters are correctly displayed or they are not, or whether the proposal of me or another user is a correct way do display data; or whether the change the way of displaying data is worth implementing. Instead of discussing the substance, User:AirshipJungleman29 first objected on form, quote: ("Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site"). When I asked User:AirshipJungleman29 to provide an example of this proposal in a form they find proper, they ignored and instead didn't stay on topic but raised a new topic that I and a user which was later blocked violate GA review rules. When I argued against this claim of User:AirshipJungleman29, they again avoided the discussion on substance but threatened me with ANI: "And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI". This is not a constructive way of discussing. If they didn't want any argument from me, they should not engage me in a discussion, but if they did, they should treat my reply with respect - this is in accordance of the "dot not fuel" principle ( WP:DENY). By fuelling the discussion in that they do not intend to duly participate, moreover, ANI treats for "tediousness" is an intentionally toxic behaviour that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia talk.
User:AirshipJungleman29 violates the essence of a healthy discussion, which is the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be open to different perspectives and respecting the arguments of others, even if they differ from one's own.
When User:AirshipJungleman29 chooses to characterize my arguments as "tedious" rather than addressing them on their merits, it undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Everyone's contributions or opinions are valuable and deserve to be treated with respect.
Moreover, the use of threats, such as the threat to open a thread at ANI, can create a hostile environment that discourages open discussion. Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation.
The principle of WP:DENY, or "do not fuel", emphasizes the importance of not engaging in unproductive discussions. If User:AirshipJungleman29 does not intend to participate constructively in the discussion, it may be best to disengage and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia in other ways.
Thank you! Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Quoting statements with diffs: In this discussion, AirshipJungleman29's comments to Maxim Masiutin:
Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes".
Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking".
No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions.
And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning.
Other editors also disagreed with Maxim's proposal but not with such contempt exasperation. edited to repair my initial word choice which I thought about overnight and decided was overly judgemental.
Schazjmd
(talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Examples
|
---|
|
Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me, but I have to admit that I agree. More than 700 words to complain that someone was mean to you on the internet! Sealioning indeed. You say
if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way, but is that really true? I look at all of the exasperated responses AJ29 brought to this thread. Have they changed your behaviour? Do you know why people are annoyed with you? -- asilvering ( talk) 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead.Wow--talk about shooting oneself in the foot when claiming others are the problem. Clearly needs a break from GAN (or it needs a break from them), at the very least. Grandpallama ( talk) 01:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and editor time is our most valuable resource. The diffs provided by Schazjmd show that Maxim Masiutin has been a major timesink and has already exhausted the patience of numerous editors at WP:GAN. In this thread, even those editors who have been somewhat sympathetic to Maxim Masiutin have still acknowledged that AirshipJungleman29's frustration is both understandable and justified; that feeling of exasperation has expanded to include uninvolved editors participating in this discussion. I propose a 6-month topic ban for Maxim Masiutin from WP:GAN and its talkpage. Grandpallama ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
In composing, as a general rule, run your pen through every other word you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give your style.
If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment." NebY ( talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation). After uninvolved editors explained me when I am wrong, I thanked and proposed to abstain for at least a year from GAN talk, which is a kind of topic ban volunteerly accepted. Therefore, I don't understand some points: (1) why editors need discuss a topic ban for a lesser period (6 months), it is for the proportionality of punishment principe to put a lower punishment instead; (2) isn't letting the discussion go the waste of people time when it could be concluded a few days ago already on my proposal to abstain from GAN talk; (3) why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI threat, and checking my actions and punishing them if needed was my initial intent of this ANI complaint, isn't a waste of people time to cyclically add and remove such a boomerang shop picture? Wikipedia is still a big puzzle for me. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand that boomerang is when your complaint backfires but this is not my case where I explicitly asked to check my behavior and literally filled an AI against myself on behalf of AirshipJungleman29That's not true. Literally the first sentence of this filing:
Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.Grandpallama ( talk) 13:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Bringing to attention the chronic refusal by Visnu92 to discuss his persistent addition of Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones in Malaysia ( [109] and [110]). Discussion had been opened in WikiProject Malaysia as there had been no guidelines on Chinese and Tamil scripts in infrastructure-related articles, but said user has repeatedly ignored discussions eventhough he was tagged, a clear-cut refusal to seek consensus. hundenvonPG ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abhirup2441139 has in the space of c 24 hrs created five copies of Draft:Arup Das under different titles as well as on their user page and sandbox, most with significant copyvios. I believe there is also a COI issue, which the user has not responded to (they also implied as much, by saying that they got the permission to use "all the materials" from the family of the person in question). Finally, there is now a new account Ad1959 joining the fray (and offering to report me to "authorities"), which I suspect is a puppet of some variety. Could we please apply some brakes here? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Should we be concerned about this edit in the context of the one made immediately after? — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Baratiiman ( talk · contribs) has made multiple instances of mistranslated statements, incoherent grammar raising serious questions about their WP:CIR and WP:OR that had been flagged by editors over a period of time but has refused to address the issue despite several warnings on their talk page. Their latest target has been 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, where they have added material that is not supported by sources and falsely accuse me of censorship in the talk page. See
For further reference, I am also showing multiple complaints that they had from me and other users over their editing, which they have never addressed, as well as other examples of questionable editing. I have already raised this in ANI early this year but no action was taken:
For WP:CIR, a check of their contributions would find that a majority of their edits are badly written.
Borgenland ( talk) 13:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Single-purpose account promoting Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, ignoring past discussion at Talk:Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi#Content written like an advertisement * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
For the past 2 years, an incredibly disruptive user has been vandalizing pages related to South Asian topics; with their primary MO to inflate census numbers in favour of their religion, write general statements which aggrandize their language, Punjabi ethnicity, and religion, and to include the Ravidassia religion as part of Sikhism (Ravidassias were formerly a schismatic faction within Sikhism, after an attack on one of their temples and religious leaders, they split off from the Sikh religion and compiled their own religious book)
They primarily use various 93*IPs which geolocate to Italy; some of their ranges include: 93.33.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.32.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.36.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.45.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) etc. Hundreds of individual IPs within these ranges have been blocked (often for a short duration of time) for repeated vandalism + disruption.
They recently created an account called DeraBallanOfficial, pretending to be the official representative of an apex Ravidas institution. Their user page promotes a fringe theory about the aforementioned attack on the Ravidas temple, which they've incorporated into their edits as well- [130], [131], [132]. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
"DeraBallanOfficial" sounds like it is a straight up WP:UPOL violation whether they were legitimately an official representative of Dela Ballan or not. -- D'n'B- t -- 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
They also have a lot to say about me personally, so I'd rather not respond myself any further. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zimidar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) enough rope given, seems to be here just to promote their clients. 95.107.255.234 ( talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please remove TPA, there are WP:CIR issues and general misuse of TPA. Courtesy ping @ ToBeFree. v/r - Seawolf35 T-- C 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to call attention to M.Bitton and what seems to be an intractable pattern of WP:OWNership and civil POV-pushing. I considered the edit warring noticeboard or DR (3O has already failed), but decided to come to ANI because this appears to be a longstanding pattern.
We have been talking for some time and his responses have been increasingly indefensible as he continues to wholesale revert any change to shakshouka. The article came to my attention because one of my randomly-assigned wiki-mentees asked for help. At first I thought M.Bitton was just a bit impatient and bitey with this newbie (I expressed that concern here), but I am now concerned that there is a much larger problematic pattern of behaviour. In this content dispute, M.Bitton has ignored this 3O and repeatedly reverted full-article edits over a single word in the lead: [140] [141] [142], refusing to engage constructively on the talk page: [143] [144] [145] [146]. I particularly want to highlight their response after that last revert, where they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources I had in fact just used: [147] [148] They appear to address my suggested edits here (apparently reading my contribution for the first time after reverting it) but not in a constructive spirit.
Their talk page history suggests that they have a pattern of obstructionism: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] Especially worrisome to me are the edit summaries, where M.Bitton responds to these requests for more constructive editing by calling them insults. I got curious about whether this was a pattern; in addition to their block log, searching M.Bitton's name at ANI suggests that the Maghreb topic area has led them into conflict before: 2023 2023 2021 2021 2015
All of this suggests that there are major problems that have been going on for a long time. I truly do not care about shakshuka and am only trying to resolve, using academic sources, the content issue that my mentee was struggling with; nevertheless, I have been accused of POV-pushing and have found the article impossible to edit. Could an admin please investigate? ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 06:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
We have been talking for some timeno we haven't. While I have been making proposals on how to improve the article, your only input has been in response to the POV that you've been trying to impose through an edit war. Your first so-called bold edit involved a revert of Skitash's edit that sidelined my proposal and ignored everything that was said on the TP.
M.Bitton has ignored this 3Othat's a lie! see my response them.
they tell me I must base my edits on the three sourcesthat's another lie. Here's what suggested (inviting others to provide the needed RS).
They appear to address my suggested edits... not in a constructive spirit.the serious concerns that I raised with regard to your misrepresentation of the sources speak for themselves (there are others that I will highlight once you start responding). Understandably, it's a lot easier to run to ANI than to justify the unjustifiable. M.Bitton ( talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find[155] before my first rewrite and
As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go)[156] before my second rewrite. Why should M.Bitton be allowed to (theoretically) do a full rewrite and not me? ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Since registration, @ Countscarter has been adding unsourced content along with providing little to no communication with other editors, including the near-total lack of edit summaries. They were also in a brief edit war over the article for Fixed (such as here), providing no references for justification and insisted on their edits through word of mouth. They have been warned for their actions about eight times (mostly for this month), including by me. After recent unsourced contributions on The Ark and the Aardvark ( here) and Universal Pictures Home Entertainment ( here), I decided I can no longer assume good faith in this user.
I've been tracking and mostly reverting Countscarter's edits for about a couple of weeks now since finding one of their contributions suspicious, although I have forgotten the initial article that grabbed my attention. I initially made a report on the Teahouse before moving to here out of suggestion by @ Tenryuu and then deciding to wait afterwards to give another chance. Unfortunately, in the eight days since the Teahouse report, I found little to no improvements in Countscarter's editing, with only about a couple of edits (such as with here, albeit reverted) using sources. Lastly to note they've made dozens of such edits on Scene It?; I suggest someone review the article's quality since there's too many edits to focus on briefly. If I have done anything unintentionally out of malice, please let me know. Carlinal ( talk) 21:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The account Ayush219 ( talk · contribs · count) was registered earlier this week and started editing today, and immediately went on to mass replace Bhumihar (which is a caste in India) with Bhumihar Brahmin, i.e., claiming a specific social status for that caste (despite a lack of consensus for that status in multiple discussions at Talk:Bhumihar). The user did not stop their mass changes despite multiple reverts and several warnings posted to their Talk. When finally stopped, their responses were far from collaborative; while their response to a routine CT notice was essentially a PA. Is it only me that feel they are here only to promote their own caste and not to build an encylopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
But there should be people belonging to that community also. Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personalmake it appear that you consider the Bhumihar caste "very personal", and so I responded politely pointing you to our policies about the conflict of interest. I don't think your aggressive tone is warranted, and I don't feel you understand what Wikipedia is about. — kashmīrī TALK 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Ayush219, please be aware that accusing another editor of racial supremacy
and saying that the editor is against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them
is a very grave matter here on Wikipedia. You are expected to immediately provide convincing evidence in the form of
diffs showing quite clearly that the other editor is misbehaving that way. You have thusfar failed to do so. Unsubstantiated accusations like this consitite
personal attacks and failure to
Assume good faith, both of which are blockable offenses. Please be aware that
Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups imposes heightened responsibilities on editors contributing to all
caste,
Jāti and
Varna (Hinduism) related articles. You must now do one of two things: Either provide convincing evidence of actual misconduct by
Kashmiri, or unambiguously withdraw your accusations. Caste warriors are simply not welcome on the Engish Wikipedia. The choice between those two options is yours.
Cullen328 (
talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal, which is of course nonsense, does not make it so. That community is nearly 4 million strong, so 'small' is in the eye of the beholder, but regardless, COI is more about WP:PAID (loose and outright), so it would not apply here. Now, if they were part of an org benefiting from such edits, that'd be different. So I'd urge you to be more judicious when invoking it (especially since there's no reason to do so and it only muddies the waters). Thanks. El_C 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
On three separate occasions [157] [158] [159], User:John Foxe has removed maintenance tags while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. In the third instance, the editor was reminded of the policy and did it anyway [160]. The editor is highly experienced, having been on Wikipedia since 2006 and should know better than to engage in disruptive editing.-- User:Namiba 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I recently got "partially blocked" from CopyPatrol by JJMC89. I am writing to ask for someone to please review this block.
I am not here to "play games", or mess around with Wikipedia. All I wanted to do was help. I want to make it clear that I want to be a good contributor to the encyclopedia and I am happy to learn from my mistakes.
I understand that I have made some mistakes when using it, such as not following up on the copyright violations, and I am very willing to learn from this. However, I did not expect to be blocked completely and have a black mark on my record. I feel that this block is disproportionate given my actions. Particularly, I tried my best to use the tool properly. I know that this tool is not a toy. I think that it would be a lot better if I were informed of my mistakes, prior to such a block being imposed against me. I am more than happy to do more reading to further understand the tool prior to using it again.
Thank you in advance for reviewing my block and I look forward to a response regarding this. WizardGamer775 ( talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What exactly is urgent about this or what is the behavioral issue, other than your own, which resulted in your pblock? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to report user Cfls for their poor editing behavior, including large-scale deletions, bias, and lack of good faith in discussions. Cfls has been involved in numerous disputes on talk pages regarding editing decisions on Chinese academic institutions, university classifications, and content deletions. Their editing behavior has resulted in the loss of valuable content.
Some specific issues are:
1. Large-scale deletions: Cfls has repeatedly removed large amounts of content from articles like Fudan University, Shanghai University, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They have deleted well-sourced historical information and replaced it with minimal introductory paragraphs, significantly impacting the quality and comprehensiveness of these articles.
2. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Policies: The user often justifies these deletions by citing WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:BOOSTER, but fails to provide concrete explanations for why specific content violates these policies. They have removed references to reputable sources like Times Higher Education and Shanghai Ranking, claiming they don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, which contradicts established consensus on these sources. They appears to misinterpret policies like WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV to justify removing factual information and descriptive language.
3. Lack of good faith: Cfls often replies to criticism with long, passive-aggressive paragraphs (possibly generated by ChatGPT) and dismissive comments. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions, Cfls avoids addressing specific concerns and accuses others of bias or not understanding Wikipedia policies.
4. Talk Page Misuse: Cfls is now frequently emptying their talk page by marking discussions as "archived," even though these disputes are clearly not settled, which seems to be an attempt to avoid criticism. This behavior raises doubts about their good faith.
I kindly request that administrators review the editing history and talk page discussions of Cfls, and take appropriate actions (such as warnings, topic bans, or blocks) based on their findings. 61.224.112.80 ( talk) 05:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
passive-aggressiveabout this - if anything, it is the opposite, as the text is very informative and links to several policies and is also open to other views. As Dennis Brown pointed out, your best bet would be to go to the talk page of all the articles and come to a compromise. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? -
Continuously uploading undesirable posters of Vijay films. I believe the poster used should be the original release poster, but he uses re-release and teaser ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The following IP as well as user has been adding nonsensical/opinionated text to the Tarek Loubani article. You can see their additions in the lede as well as later in the article regarding Loubani being shot in the leg.
Looking at the article history, you can see that Editor1249339333's initial additions were reverted by an IP and were added again. After I went ahead and reverted it myself, the IP 142.198.108.139 would once again add everything back, even after being warned by myself in both their talk page and in my edit comment.
Given the fact that their only edits are on the article about him, it's clear that the sole purpose of this IP & account is to attack Tarek Loubani. I'm requesting somebody with the authority to either lock the article, block the account/IP, or anything else that would be suitable for this. Thanks, B3251 ( talk) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! This is for @ Smalljim: your talk page is semi-protected so I have no other way of contacting you.
You recently blocked Kiss.immak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WelshDragoon19 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – both are obvious vandalism-only accounts: Kiss is an anti-Israel edit warrior, Dragoon is an sockpuppeting LTA and harasser.
I am at a loss as to why both only got 31 hours off. In 31 hours, both will clearly be back doing the same edits again. This, to me, seems insane. 92.17.14.64 ( talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
You are both well past Wp:3RR on your edits. There's no obvious vandalism so any accusations of such, and valid reversion are invalid. And if you're reverting an article to a previous version, you're indeed endorsing that version especially when you do it multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Last year, Justin L. 1230 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made hundreds of minor edits that are an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING EC, such as editing articles by adding a single letter at a time (e.g. [174] [175]). They are now making contentious edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area [176]. Can their EC status be revoked? Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This account appeared out of nowhere and was EXTREMELY active with page moves, racking up more than 19,000 edits in just 3 months, many of them article page moves. Most of the article page moves that occurred were abbreviations of the article subjects name, either dropping middle names or middle initials or other changes that served to shorten the article subject's proper name. I had some great suspicions about this account and brought them up on User talk:Nirva20 several times. I even mentioned my doubts to other editors/admins but without going through the article references myself, I couldn't easily verify that these page titles were improper and I didn't have the time to investigate the dozens of article page moves they did on a daily basis. I watch the Move log and they were a high volume page mover, I'd say many of their large edit count were page moves, all of them biographies.
They've now been identified as a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and I'm just wondering if there should be a review of their page moves. I'm not familiar with Rms125a@hotmail.com so I don't know if they were basically a competent editor and we can rely on these being valid page moves or not. I understand that this would be a big project to undertake but maybe there are editors who like projects like this. If on the other hand, Rms125a@hotmail.com was a good editor blocked for behavioral reasons, perhaps this is unnecessary so I'm calling on longtimers who have a good memory for your opinion on this. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hate message left [177] after warning them for several vandalizing edits [178] [179] ArkHyena ( talk) 04:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Repeat vandalism of Magnetar [180] [181] despite being blocked recently over persistent vandalism of the same page and, vandalism of Mons pubis [182]. Protection of Magnetar may be needed. ArkHyena ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Not asking for action on any specific editor here at least, but the situation in terms of behavior at the Havana syndrome talk page really needs some admin help in terms of WP:TPNO to tone things down. This section is the most indicative of how bad it has gotten.
The majority of comments in that section don't even deal with content anymore and are moreso WP:BATTLEGROUND potshots making those of us who were watching this on the periphery at noticeboards pretty much unable to help with anything. I tried commenting once about the personal attacks on the talk page and to knock it off, but it's just escalating anyways given the talk page history this morning, so I don't want to wade into the talk page anymore in that state.
A lot of the underlying issues center around edit warring. Large-scale edit warring was going on earlier, especially WP:ONUS policy violations. It got so bad the page was protected for two weeks by EdJohnston in the hopes that editors would propose specific content and do an RfC if needed on that rather than keep trying to directly add content back in. The latter happened recently instead after protection expired without consensus on specific content. Instead there's a lot of lashing out in the battleground comments against the basic concept that editors need to get consensus on disputed content, especially after page protection, so I'd just ask admins to keep an eye out for those comments escalating the battleground atmosphere there rather than working on the content. This one has felt like pulling teeth between the ONUS issues and battleground comments, so hopefully tamping that down might make the topic more accessible for uninvolved editors. KoA ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
You may participate in the relevant discussions on the talk page instead of casting aspersions.. [191]
unhelpful and unwelcomeand harassment [193] [194]
However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing). Obviously those discussions are approached cautiously, but so far it appears that was broached to you reasonably.
The other snide remarks I removed were harassment.That does not justify the sniping you engage in on the article talk page, but couching others bringing up issues with your behavior in proper venues as harassment is avoidance and hallmark tendentious editing. My suggestion is to step back from the topic entirely and avoid controversial topics in order to learn the ropes about behavior norms, edit warring, etc., especially when it comes to battleground mentality. That's me trying to give you a pathway that avoids sanctions, and I'm not out to get you here. Sometimes people course-correct and eventually can return to collegial editing on their own when given advice like that, and others unfortunately just lash out instead. With the way you're heading at that page though with this degree of WP:IDHT about one's own behavior, often times the only option the community has left is sanctions when all else fails. KoA ( talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Back in the drawer. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello there! I need your help. A guy named Sportsfan 1234 continues to investigate sockpuppets of the other account named Raymarcbadz and insists the admins block all the socks connected to the master. The editing of Olympic-related articles has been a major issue since June. He favored the users to ban the sock master and the other accounts from editing. Yet, he continues to baffle the socks and the sockmaster without any further reason. He never replies nor entertains my questions and comments. He destroyed the reputation of the user who spent 16 years editing Wikipedia articles. We need your help to stop and address this nonsensical issue. Thank you! DayangHirang4405 ( talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User refuses to stop adding ridiculous PRODs ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) to articles after being warned several times, continues to insist every article is "vandalism" or a "troll page." Also has months of spam edits and pointless reverts. Almost all of their edits are vandalism. Swinub ( talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 198.166.141.10) has been rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation. Some of the reverts were like this one related to the issue of "supported by" in conflict infoboxes. That was an issue that led to Rembo01 being blocked for IP-socking. But 198.166.141.10 was also rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation on 5 December 2023, and the IP is from Canada, whereas the IPs that Rembo01 was suspected of using were from Indonesia. I suspect that 198.166.141.10's activities are unrelated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The paid editor Topg1985 has been tendentiously persisting in working on a draft that was Rejected by an AFC reviewer (and in my opinion the rejection was appropriate) after being declined six times, mostly because a deletion discussion had already found that the subject of the article does not meet notability. As the nomination in the AFD shows, articles about the subject have been repeatedly created since 2020, probably also by his agency's paid editors by the gaming of titles. Topg1985 has now been a nuisance at the AFC Help Desk (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#20:42,_21_April_2024_review_of_submission_by_Topg1985).
Topg1985 continued working on the rejected draft after being explicitly told to stop working on it because it was rejected, at which point the reviewer,
User:HouseBlaster, nominated the draft for deletion. But MFD is a content forum, and the user's conduct should also be dealt with. Topg1985 also told
User:Theroadislong to stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best
, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FHelp_desk&diff=1220258953&oldid=1220256037
The allegation of trolling is a
personal attack.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has severe civility problems on Talk:Fraser Island including failure to abide by the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct (mandated by ToS) and ad hominem at contributors whom they disagree with. Since I've been directly involved, can someone else take a look at it? -- SHB2000 ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently Sirfurboy refuses to hear anything, repeating the same disproved arguments over and over. Summer92 ( talk) 09:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
In case of content disputes I'd try to discuss it on the talk page, and if that doesn't work I'll go to ANI or other appropriate boards.[196] NebY ( talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis in original), which I'm not seeing at Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation 2. You should use WP:DR to determine next steps; a page that an administrator requested you read. I'd advise withdrawing this complaint and moving on. (Non-administrator comment) — Sirdog ( talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The user Is made by people like started making threats at me on their talk page by threatening me to k*ll myself after I politely warned them that they need to cite a reliable source. I told them this, and said that if they keep making threats like this, I would notify the administrators. However, as you'll see on their talk page, they continue to call me a liar and tell me to die. Is it possible to state an indefinite block for this user? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 09:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8490:12E0:0:0:0:0/64 - pretty much all edits from this IP range are ideological BLP vandalism. There aren't that many edits and they're quickly reverted, but this has been going on for over a year now and it's all coming from the same person. Avessa ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CPSisoAisha is WP:NOTHERE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Can someone have a word with Mets1013! who has now, for a second time, moved War in Afghanistan to a disambiguation page and thence onto a page with a period/full stop on it? I moved them back once already, but I am not going to move war when both of their unilaterally chosen titles are wrong: one has an unnecessary disambiguator, and the other uses punctuation. I have advised them against this. They continued, with no explanation. It is bizarre, considering this must be one of our highest-viewed articles, and I can't really see the point. But when accidental disruption becomes a deliberate disruption, I suppose the point ceases to matter. ——Serial Number 54129 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I request administrative action against User:Mteiritay for their repeated unsubstantiated deletions of sourced content at Sulaiman Bek, or, alternatively, a protection of that specific page - whatever you see fit. I tried to discuss their objections thoroughly at the article's talk page and went through both the WP:RfC and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sulaiman Bek processes, where they were unwilling to engage properly. The conflict on the page is ongoing since March 31 now and the user has proven their unwillingness to either engage in a constructive discussion or accept the sourced changes. As I don't believe an edit war would help here to move the issue to the responsible noticeboard, I don't see another way than requesting admin intervention.
Finally, I'd like to thank you for all the time-consuming voluntary work you are doing to keep Wikipedia a good place. I imagine it to be tiring at times; I surely am tired by this conflict; the issue is not even that important to me - I just invested so much time in this already that I feel like I can't just quit now.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Someone using IPs from Sydney has been adding unsupported recording dates in music articles, especially songs by Crowded House, Sting, Billy Idol and INXS. [197] [198] [199] They have also changed release dates with no reference. This has been happening for more than a year, [200] [201] [202] but has recently become much more disruptive. The behavior includes edit-warring at the same articles; Special:Contributions/1.145.116.112 broke 3RR on one day in March. The IPs change frequently, with six IPs including Special:Contributions/1.145.74.230 used in less than one hour today. The IPs also span a wide range—a /21 group and a huge /16 group. If we block these ranges there will be collateral damage. Is there a way we can target this vandal more precisely? Pinging Ss112 who has also been dealing with this disruption. Binksternet ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that Special:Contributions/1.145.104.250 was blocked two weeks ago, but the style of that editor is different. They focused on music sales chart results and certifications. Binksternet ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Jonharojjashi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.
Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [203], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.
These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [204] [205], but they were mostly fruitless.
Jonharojjashi more or less restored [240] the unsourced edit [241] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.
In made response to my previous ANI [242], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [243] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as " WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.
There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Scott Adams has taken to Xitter to complain about an article I created, on the nonexistent "turbo cancer". Can I please ask people to watchlist. I will brace for incoming shit because my RWI is easily established, and Adams is beloved of deranged fuckwits. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
User Cjhard demonstrating WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating Wikipedia as a battleground". User first began performing repeated reverts on South Park: Joining the Panderverse involving critical reviews, which has already escalated to a WP:DRN. When given his first WP:3RR on the subject, his edit summary included the phrase "Do not edit my talk page again." Since then, he has (purposefully?) made changes to another article I have been involved with, The Pandemic Special, a subject which he had previously had no interest in prior to our interactions. The edits he has been making on this article are reverting a clear violation of WP:NOTBROKEN where another editor was adding a pipe to a redirect. He has been purposefully undoing these reversions with his edit summaries indicating that he believes this is also a difference of opinion. Furthermore, his edit summaries include other WP:PA, including "cross the bright red line, SanAnmAN, and "Please do. In the meantime I made myself pretty clear last time. Fuck off.". It is apparent to me that he is engaged in personal attacks on me. - SanAnMan ( talk) 00:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed with alarm that User:ElijahPepe has been creating one-sentence stubs and expecting others to do the work of filling them out. ElijahPepe has autopatrolled, and I believe this pattern of page creations to be inconsistent with the standards we expect of editors with this permission. His creations should be reviewed by new page patrollers, especially since so many have ultimately been redirected. He also cannot be bothered to add any categories to his article creations, which is really the bare minimum for an experienced editor.
Examples:
I could name many more examples, but I think I've made my point. Elijah should not have the autopatrolled user right, as it is for editors whose contributions can be expected to have no issues. To be clear I am not expecting anyone to be writing GA-level articles right off the bat, but at minimum they should be writing a few sentences and including more than one reference - this is a low bar to clear. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)