Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Hindu News

    [edit]

    Ther are legal and physical threats over at RSn being made (apparently) by representatives of Hindu News [[1]], but they have a fluctuating IP, so is there anything we can do to stop this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes please, multiple clear NLT violations. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the IPs that have been used in the discussion: Special:Contributions/47.31.153.39 Special:Contributions/47.31.133.164 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/47.31.153.221. The last one is blocked but needs TPA pulled, too. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And this [[2]] means it needs to be a perinant block, as this is a direct threat to target WMF staff. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the first time this organisation and it's IPs have been brought to ANI see also [3] [4] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And it needs to be applied to every involved IP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think perinant is a word, which is a shame because it should be. EEng 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past. WMF Legal and WMF CEO is very well aware of considering the past LITIGATION between our organisations, DMCAs, Office Actions etc. Anyway, what we say here is previously publlshed by us on the ICANN website [5] and can be verified from WMF and also from WP:/LTA. The LTA will show we have unlimited supply of IP addresses, so blocking is a waste of both our times. We suggest you get WMF to impose a GLOBAL BAN on us if they dare. Have a nice day.

    Somebody responsible should report this discussion to WIKIMEDIA EMERGENCY email ID also. 47.31.183.210 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that there also appears to be a threat of physical assault on WMF employees there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, but it's not like anything they say at [6] is crazy or anything. Stuff like ...
    IAC says the present UDRP is grossly biased in favor of trademark holders. The domain name holders are subjected to RDNH akin to the Jews of Europe being eliminated in Auschwitz gas chambers. IAC demands a DENAZIFICATION of ICANN and the UDRP along with its NAZI collaborators like WIPO. It seems WIPO selects their panelists for their stupidity and for strict obedience to follow WIPO's self created gas chamber operation rules. It is no coincidence that WIPO is located in Switzerland where the bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored. IAC shall list out a few of WIPO's tricks to RDNH IAC's domain.
    ... make perfect sense to me. EEng 14:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly wasn't on my bingo card for today. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They make extensive use of legal threats directed at individual editors, the WMF, and the Wikimedia India chapter; they also engage in serious harassment, both on- and off-wiki. Whack-a-mole is so tedious, lets smash a few pumpkins instead. 47.31.148.206 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may need escalation to a global ban, and maybe more as they are making direct theats, and an outright threat to sock. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's references to IAC suggest a relation to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That is correct. I provided the tq to assist you. HINDUNEWS.STREAM is a property of the Hindustan Republican Army (check its Whois). IAC is an affiliate of HRA. The brand name IAC is owned by HRA. The Hindu Raksha Dal and Hindu Rashtra Dal are armed military wings of HRA to protect peaceful/defenceless Hindu religionists in India. Let's have a civilised conversation and ignore the trolls.47.31.162.201 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a civilised discussion, stop making threats. And stop wp:socking wait till you block expires and come back without the attitude. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hindustan Socialist Republican Association? So it very much will not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming off of your threat to have your stormtroopers assault WMF staff and Wikipedia users if WP doesn't do your bidding, I'd say that civilized discussion has up and left the building. Count me very much in favor of a range block wide enough to chop these IPs down. Ravenswing 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Soooo did anyone actually contated WMD about the threats of violence? --Trade (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blaxstocatamazon: I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. City of Silver 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that the accusations made, with no evidence presented, are wholly inapproriate regardless of what the subject is, and because the edit itself implicates multiple CTops. IP editor: Anything said specifically to attempt to intimidate other editors into compliance is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are attempting to force article content). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did anyone besides EEngs read through the link EEngs provided? The comments are pure insanity. It talks about assassination, for God's sake. For editing an encyclopedia? This goes beyond legal threats. I'm surprised that there was no response from ICANN as it was posted on their website. To me, it matters whether IAC is an actual organization or just the rantings of one crazy, zealous person. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to tell earlier but got deleted. (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In mitigation, they're nice to bovines. EEng 13:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about buildings with windows? But yes, bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored there, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice storyline. But it's clear that you are related to this LTA in some way as noted before on your talkpage by me long ago [7]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The medical NGO I advice sometimes uses their assistance in certain places of India to operate safely, as also their networks in goverment when needed for advocacy or governmetal action. eg like 2024 Kolkata rape/murder. So something about their storyline is known. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You were essentially repeating same claims about filing a report with the national task force for doctor safety/Supreme court[8] as the IPs of hindu rashtra dal did on the talkpage of Kolkata rape incident. [9][10][11] Making legal threats on the same page also led to your block.[12] I have no doubts that you are related to them in some way, given how the first thing you did after getting unblocked is comment in this thread. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Col. Rajendra Singh Dalvi [1][2] who claims to be secular and liberal - The links you cited all points to the opposite of what you wrote, are you trolling? - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaaaand I've redacted the new claims for the same reason I redacted the old, plus a dash of blatant BLP violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only partially veiled threats of violence are among the most alarming things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy shit... Tavantius (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry -- it's really just these guys [13]. EEng 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just mention this related ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SumoAvocado is seeking to intimidate a long term admin. The editor who came to my user talk page asked me not just to remove this discussion (and other discussions of Hindu News) but to revision delete all edits that made up the discussion. That account has been blocked. But I have the feeling that they will be back. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am kind of wondering if it would be wise to advise the WMF of the threats of physical violence that have occurred within this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it would. It would also be a good idea to inform them that various people feel empowered to make such threats by the WMF's seeming willingness to roll over in the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation case. I'm sure we'll see much more of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the any more than this we can actually do, just be vigilant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These accounts should be globally locked, to make it clear that we don't tolerate any of this anywhere on Wikimedia. I submitted a few on m:Steward requests/Global. Yann (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) 47.31.186.213 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we have another. At this stage just socking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No edits outside of the ENWP. Just re-report if those blocked accounts have activity on other projects. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible block evasion by sockpuppet User:MaralagoPawn

    [edit]

    Personal attacks and disruptive behavior from Lgnxz

    [edit]
    WILL DISCUSS EDITS
    Parties agree to work it out on article talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    For some context on the situation, on November 9, User:Lgnxz began a large-scale removal of the term "J-31" from the Shenyang J-35 article on the grounds that it was a "misnomer" (see this group of 14 edits). While this assessment is partially true in the case of the prototype, which is officially designated FC-31 and was sometimes called "J-31" by western media, this does not extend to at least one enlarged variant of the aircraft promoted by manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and the Chinese state media known as the "J-31B". I confronted Lgnxz about this misconception on November 10, but Lgnxz repeatedly insisted that the video released by the aircraft's manufacturer, promoted by the Chinese media, and heavily analyzed by western media was somehow a mistake, citing nothing but WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and the fallacious argument that the revelation of the J-35 designation disproves the existence of the enlarged J-31B which had already been confirmed by Chinese state media ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). I repeatedly asked for reliable sources confirming that the J-31B and J-35 were the same variant, but only got more WP:OR and claims that that the sources were already in the article (I was unable to find any such sources in the article). On top of that, Lgnxz dropped several personal attacks, first calling me an "avid wikipedia fundamentalist" and then saying that I was "clearly unwell". After I warned them about the second attack, they responded with this confusing, dare I say trolling comment.

    Earlier today, an IP removed sourced information about the J-31B from the article. I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them, to which they responded that "your paranoia would be very amusing for months to come". Given the repeated WP:IDNHT behavior and personal attacks, I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEA T\C 00:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ZLEA, this is clearly primarily a content dispute. Has this been discussed on the article talk page? Can you provide a link to any discussion? Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz This is primarily about the attacks and the disruptive behavior, not the dispute itself. I included details about the dispute as it gives context to the actual problem. - ZLEA T\C 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them" And what would be your reason for accusing me? A baseless prejudice of course, given that despite the clear personal difference between us, I didn't do any petty vandalism or edit war in the J-35 page with you or any other people on any page, nor do I want to 'troll' you by extending this overextended topic any longer; I've said what I need to say about the J-31B. It just seems very ironic how you're accusing me for being 'disruptive' given how you try to accuse me without evidence that I use different IP to 'stealth edit' the J-31B section from the J-35, and with further attempt to escalate the matter to an Admin. Lgnxz (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't want an escalation, you should have stopped your personal attacks at the final warning, or better yet never made any attacks to begin with. I also made no accusations of sockpuppetry, I only asked if you were the IP based on a reasonable suspicion (not "baseless prejudice") since the IP performed an edit similar to one you made only a few days ago. It wouldn't have been the first time I caught such sockpuppetry, especially after the original account had supposedly dropped the subject. - ZLEA T\C 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Editing while logged out can be considered sockpuppetry if used inappropriately. If it was you, please don't do it again."
    That sounds pretty accusatory to me. But please, keep bringing this up personally to me and about me instead of having a talk page in the J-35 page on the J-31B as mentioned by the admin. That'll truly show how disruptive and escalatory I am instead of vice versa, right? Lgnxz (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be glad to have such a discussion on the article's talk page, but not with someone who throws around personal attacks as freely as you have these last few days. - ZLEA T\C 07:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Lgnxz and ZLEA, if everyone can agree on no personal attacks or passive aggressive comments, can this discussion move to the article talk page? I've found when two editors are in a dispute like this, it really helps to get other knowledgeable editors to participate in the discussion so it's not a "me vs. you" situation. How about we try to move forward? Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree to that. - ZLEA T\C 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you, Lgnxz? Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure Lgnxz (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then go forth and discuss! With civility. And I hope not to see a return trip to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ezra Ben Yosef

    [edit]

    I copied the complaint from WP:AIV, and will notify both parties. --Altenmann >talk 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ezra Ben Yosef (talk · contribs) My name is Hellenyck, and I would like to clarify from the outset that I am only somewhat familiar with the conventions of the English Wikipedia, as I am predominantly active on the German Wikipedia. I have encountered an account that repeatedly introduces misinformation and historical distortions into the "Beta Israel" topic. Most of these edits have been reverted. Initially, I was inclined to attribute this user’s actions to a lack of understanding of the academic discourse (the academic discourse on "Beta Israel" fundamentally differs from the popular discourse in the media, and there is even a scholarly study by Kaplan on this). However, upon reviewing the edits, I noticed that the user is indeed familiar with the standard works on the topic but distorts and misrepresents their content beyond recognition. It is difficult to imagine that, despite extensive reading of these works, the core of recent academic discourse since the 1990s has escaped understanding (it is academic consensus that the Beta Israel are an autochthonous group that developed from Ethiopian Christianity from the 15th century onward; see, for example, Kay Kaufman Shelemay: Music, Ritual and Falasha History, East Lansing, Mich., 1986; Steven Kaplan: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York, 1992; Steven Kaplan: "Betä Ǝsraᵓel." In: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, Volume 1, A–C, Wiesbaden, 2003, pp. 552–559). This user appears to deliberately spread misinformation, likely to express an apologetic worldview, which constitutes outright vandalism. Almost every one of his edits is a falsification of history. The user has previously been warned on the user page for apologetic edits in the Beta Israel article but has not ceased. Now, the individual has even invented a new term, "Judeo-Ge'ez". --Hellenyck (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Hellenyck: In order for your complaint to be considered, you have to present user's edits which you say are misinformation, preferably in the form of diffs, with comments. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my side, I reviewed the page Judeo-Ge'ez, supposedly a dialect of Ethiopian Jews, and can confirm that all references cited by Ezra Ben Yosef are invalid: they do not speak about Judeo-Ge'ez. It is plausible that Jews in Ethiopia spoke their dialect, cf. Judeo-Tajik etc., but, e.g., the book The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History (btw, which lists Judeo-Tajik) says that they spoke Ge'ez, rather than Judeo-Ge'ez. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I myself will be busy this weekend and will therefore not be able to comment on the topic until Sunday evening at the earliest.
      For anyone deeply familiar with the subject, it's relatively straightforward to identify what the user is attempting here, where he is being dishonest, where he is fabricating sources, and where he is simply incorrect. I would, therefore, appreciate if another user with expertise in the field could review his contributions.
      However, I would like to make a few basic comments here.
      Fundamentally, the Beta Israel are an indigenous group that distanced themselves from Orthodoxy amidst turbulent historical events, rejecting the New Testament and adopting certain Old Testament customs (see Kaplan, Steven: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia. From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York 1992). Following their "defection," Christians labeled them with the term Ayhud—a term that indeed derives from yehudim but, in the Ethiopian context, means "heretic" (or "god-killer") and was applied to various heretical Christian groups (Kaplan, Steven: Ayhud, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, I, A–C, Wiesbaden 2003, pp. 408–10). This term was rarely, if ever, used to refer to Jews, given that there were no actual Jews in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Christians viewed the Beta Israel as heretics, not as Jews, and likewise, the Beta Israel saw themselves not as Jews but as "Hebrews," a title associated with the royal dynasty. The original beliefs of the Beta Israel had no relation to Judaism.
      Later, from the 16th century onward, Europeans began arriving in Ethiopia, observing the customs of the Beta Israel. Due to superficial similarities (though there are substantial differences between the original faith of the Beta Israel and Judaism) and the Ethiopian designation Ayhud, these visitors mistakenly associated the Beta Israel with Jews. In the early 20th century, Beta Israel customs, especially due to the efforts of Faitlovitch, became increasingly aligned with Jewish practices, leading eventually to their migration to Israel. From the 1980s onward, scholarship—through careful analysis of sources—began to emphasize that nothing in the Beta Israel's original religion was inherently Jewish. This viewpoint is now the consensus in academic circles. Notably, however, this academic perspective has had little to no impact on political decisions. Discussions surrounding the "authentic Judaism of Ethiopians" are framed in fundamentally different terms from those in academic discourse.
      The user denies these facts and suggests (through genetic studies that are completely unsuitable for this question) that the Beta Israel represent a branch of ancient Judaism. Furthermore, he constructs a linguistic connection between “Judaeo-Geez” and Hebrew and a historical connection between Beta Israel and Judaism, deliberately misinterpreting and repurposing evidence in order to achieve his desired result. In doing so, he completely ignores the scientific consensus. Hellenyck (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, wall-of-text glazes eyes and makes this harder to understand. Multiple users have warned this user about problems. Please post three or four diffs that show those problems and explain in one or two sentences for each why those diffs represent a problem. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This diff appears problematic. The citation to Chiaroni says Hammer, which could be just an innocent mistake. However, the study, appears to have been misrepresented. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" isn't in the study, so the conclusion about Ethiopian Jews appears to have been mis-stated. Andre🚐 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I know rsjaffe is asking for differences, but the issues here are more about content not matching the cited materials from the article's inception. These problems date to the article's creation. Would this be more appropriately handled at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Essentially this is an WP:OR problem involving content... although repeatedly misrepresenting sources (ie citing material that doesn't verify the text) might be seen as a behavioral issue that needs addressing an ANI.
    What is required is reading the cited sources and comparing them to the text in the article. In fact checking, the Kaplan source is used repeatedly and it never mentions "Judeo-Ge'ez" anywhere. It does address dialect in Beta Israel literature begins on page 103, but the author calls it an "Agaw dialect" (which we already cover as a people group and at Agaw languages). Kaplan as a whole argues that the Beta Israel texts were transcribed not from Jewish sources but Christian one, which is pretty antithetical to the point of view in this article which is working hard to connect the Beta Israel texts directly to Jewish literature. Clearly, there is no way anyone who has read the Kaplan article could come to the conclusions being made in the Judeo-Ge'ez article. They are clearly false citations that have existed from moment of article creation.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, it sounds like, at the very least, a rewrite is called for if these mistakes have existed since the article's creation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz I think you are fundamentally missing the point that the term "Judeo-Ge'ez" itself is made up. None of the sources use that term. As a concept it is completely original, and there are no sources to support a re-write. It's rightly at WP:AFD. The question is what to do with the editor who created an article on a term not mentioned in sources being cited who essentially falsified references and was purposefully deceptive. For example, the Hebrew language that supposedly means Judeo-Ge'ez given in the article ( יהודי אתיופי ) is actually the Hebrew name for Ethiopian Jew. The whole thing is an odd original treatise not supported by anything that has ever been published. One could even call it WP:HOAX but I think the author is more of a sincere original thinker with a pet WP:FRINGE theory that has never been published.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I said "at the very least". You can also send this to AFD if you believe it is not fixable. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As 4meter4 said, the article is already at AfD (roughly 14 hours before your comment). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, you are missing the point of the complaint of Hellenyck: a single OR article would be not a big deal, but this person apparently disrupts other articles with their theories. --Altenmann >talk 17:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought about that. His edit history will need to be checked as he appears to have edited heavily in articles related to both Ethiopia and Jewish history. Given the false referencing in one article, we may need to investigate whether this has occurred in other locations as well. If he's introduced false referencing elsewhere, I would support either a topic ban or a block. That said, I don't know if that has happened as I personally have not looked. It might just be the one incident/article.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show us the diffs. We are not experts in this field yet we may have to take significant action. Give us several examples of disruption, point to the online reference the user relied on and explain why the edit is a problem. I am inclined to believe you, but to take significant action requires confirmation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    --Altenmann >talk 21:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's enough for a temporary block for disruptive editing. I have blocked from article space for 31 hours and invited the editor here to discuss. Other administrators feel free to extend this block if I have been too conservative or otherwise alter/remove it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Factoring into this decision was the observation that 1/3rd of the user's edits have been reverted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Judeo-Ge'ez

    [edit]

    If you look in the edit history of the Judeo-Ge'ez article Ezra Ben Yosef is the only writer of the prose to that article. A few other editors added categories and did minor copy edits, but they didn't actually write content or add sources. This content can get really technical, so I'm just going to distill it down to the opening sentence of the lead because that opening is all that really matters to understand why this is WP:OR. The article states, "Judeo-Ge'ez (Ge'ez: የፈላሻዎች አፍ. Hebrew: יהודי אתיופי) is a historical Jewish dialect spoken by the ancient Beta Israel community that is derived from Biblical Hebrew."

    In this difference at the AFD Ezra Ben Yosef is clearly saying that the content about the Judeo-Ge'ez language is supported by the sources he lists. He further states several facts in this edit:

    1. "There's clear proof that the Judeo-Ge'ez language is different to Ge'ez and can be classified as a dialect."
    2. "The language derives from a Herbraic source."
    3. That the Beta Israel didn't speak "Agaw" and that they really speak a Cushitic language mixed with Hebrew called Judeo-Ge'ez.

    These three points are basically the distilled version of the article, and they are also not supported in the sources that Ezra Ben Yosef lists. None of the sources ever use the term "Judeo-Ge'ez". This is a made-up language.

    One of the main sources cited is Kaplan, Steven (2009). ""The Literature of the Beta Israel (Falasha): A Survey of a Biblical-Hebraic Tradition"".

    When we look in Kaplan the author directly contradicts all three assertions made by Ezra Ben Yosef.

    Kaplan writes on page 103, "Although the Beta Israel themselves claim to have once had Hebrew manuscripts and claim that examples of such texts are hidden in caves and monastaries in Ethiopia, most scholars do not believe that they ever possessed a knowledge of Hebrew. A small number of works, especially prayers, preserve word or even entire passages in the Agaw dialects once spoken by the Beta Israel."

    So here we have Kaplan distilling for us in a literature overview the prevailing view that Beta Israel people had no knowledge of Hebrew, and identifying their spoken language as the Agaw language. This directly contradicts the claim of the existence of the Judeo-Ge'ez language; ie a Biblical Hebrew based language that is blended with Ge'ez that is supposedly the native language of the Beta Israel.

    Kaplan then goes on to investigate the origins of Beta Israel literature and gives probably the most in-depth overview of the published scholarly lit in this field, ultimately drawing the following in his concluding remarks on page 119: Almost without exception, the sacred literature of the Beta Israel reached them through Christian channels. As has been demonstrated above in a surprisingly large amount of cases, this dependence on Christian sources can be proven through the retention of Christian terms, phrases, ideas, and names in the Beta Israel text." So basically Kaplan is saying, that the idea of Biblical Hebrew based language that connects the Beta Israel people back to the original Hebraic literature and directly to the Jewish people as their descendants is a false claim, and that their Hebrew literature came entirely from Christian sources, not Jewish ones. This is directly countering the claims of the article which is trying to use a language article to validate the historicity of a direct connection between the Jewish people and the Beta Israel people (something contested by most religious scholars and by most Jewish people). Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But politically/socially they are seen as Jews and have emigrated to Israel. Is there literature that discusses this? Is there more than Kaplan talking about this? Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article on Beta Israel certainly doesn't contest their Jewishness. Secretlondon (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethiopian Jews are Jewish, I don't think that is really up for dispute, I think it seems like Ezra Ben Yosef was trying to bolster their claims of ancient origins from Yemenite Jews which I don't think is the currently accepted historical consensus. Nobody should be disputing that Ethiopian Jews are Jews Andre🚐 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, they were officially recognized as Jewish after much debate in the 1970s, but Jewish identity and Jewish origin in this case are two different things. It's a very complex topic, and not directly related to the Judeo-Ge'ez topic (which is made up thing) which has to do with language and literature of the Beta Israel people. There's a really wonderful article here which goes into the ins and outs of the Beta Israel people and the shrowded mystery of their origins here; but this source is also very clear that most scholars believe they are of the Agaw people (see page 402). There's also the JSTOR article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24674566 which states " Academic research into the liturgical music of the Beta Israel suggests that they formed as a group under the influence of Ethiopian Christian monasticism in the fourteenth." In general the prevailing scholarly position is they developed from Christian groups at the time. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See here, Ezra removed something [24] that appears to be accurate, adding someting unsourced here [25], and here changing the conclusions of the article to support the idea that Ethiopian Jews were Middle Eastern[26] and here [27] Andre🚐 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this is a very contentious area to edit in because the outside scholarly work contradicts the Beta Israel community's oral history and myths about their origins. So fundamentally, the scholarly academic work may upset people from within the community because the historicity of the oral tradition is not accepted in the academic literature as being true. This is one reason why we see so much edit warring in that article. FYI, I am not a contributor to that page and don't plan on being because its likely to be a place of conflict, and with continuinng WP:POV and WP:OR issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingdom of Aksum

    [edit]

    So it looks like Ezra Ben Yosef has been edit warring at Kingdom of Aksum with editors complaining he is introducing WP:OR. Looks like WP:3RR could be applied. I don't know whether it is OR or not because I haven't read the lit on this one but here are the edits: Reversion 1, Reversion 2, Reversion 3 Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term problem at Robert Hale Merriman

    [edit]

    Since April, someone editing from the IP range 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 (talk · contribs) has been making large, unsourced additions to the page Robert Hale Merriman, totalling more than 500 edits. They've been reverted and warned by about a dozen different other editors over those seven months and are not taking the hint. Indeed, at no point in that time have they so much as acknowledged any of those warnings, posted anything to any talk page, or given a single edit summary. I believe a pageblock for that IP range is warranted and appropriate at this point, given the failure of reverts and warnings to have any effect, the long timescale, and the fact that the problem emanates neatly from one /64 block. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A block against an IP range is usually enacted as a temporary solution. I think a short-term range block is in order while making a request for page protection. Peaceray (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A /64 IPv6 range is usually equivalent to a single IPv4 address and can be treated as such. The first half of the IPv6 address usually identifies the device, while the second half often varies randomly. So blocking a single /64, unlike a wider range block that could affect multiple users, would be preferable to having the whole page be protected. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern about page protection as a solution is that this person is clearly incredibly persistent and I can't imagine anything except very long term page protection being effective against them, and that seems like an outcome it would be preferable to avoid.
    I'm pretty sure I remember seeing long-term partial blocks against IP ranges used in the past - am I misremembering? It seems like the risk involved is quite low; the chances of another, uninvolved user having an address in the same /64 and wanting to edit that one specific article are small enough. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    . I am new to adminship (about ten days ago) & have never done a range block or a for a specific article. Perhaps someone at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks can help Peaceray (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I meant to congratulate you on your election!
    Anyway, @Drmies has just protected the page for a month. I've added it to my watchlist too. If they return after expiration of the protection, I suppose this can be revisited. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see the problem here: just block. Peaceray, if you go to the IP's talk page and click "block", it automatically gives you the option to block the /64. Then again--the ONLY time someone ever said anything about the IP's edits was when Casiopea said "unsourced". User:AntiDionysius, I appreciate what you are doing here, but I don't see where you explained your reverts, or left a talk page message, or talked to them--clearly they are interested in the topic and don't know how we operate, so maybe you can explain that. So, Peaceray, hold off on blocking, if you don't mind--I semi-protected, but we're here at ANI like we're dealing with some terrorist vandal, which we are not. User:Chaotic Enby, judging from the history there's no other IPs really interested in editing the article, so I semi-protected, which has the same effect for us, but doesn't kick the IP editor in the shins. One of you, PLEASE talk to the IP editor, on their most recent talk page, and explain, without a template, what they are doing wrong and how they could do it right. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I didn't leave them a talk page message this time was because it seemed like such messages had proved ineffective for whatever reason. I have left messages before, and then watched them make more such edits from the exact same IP a few minutes later. But I'll try again - as you say, without a template this time. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Try on the article talk page too, just in case. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good plan, thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially blocked (from Robert Hale Merriman). I have partially blocked 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 from editing Robert Hale Merriman for a period of six months. Peaceray (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! @Drmies, sorry for implying that blocking the IP editor was necessarily the better choice. My comment really had the technical aspect in mind (of one /64 range being equivalent to a single user/device, except in very rare technical cases), and I didn't think to check whether the IP user had been warned before. Happy to see that AntiDionysius left a message since!
    The issue with IPv6 is that, since a user's potential addresses are distributed along a /64 range, there isn't a single talk page on which we can have a consistent conversation with them. I believe the idea of /64 talkpages has been considered by MediaWiki, but I'm not sure how far in development this is for now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Chaotic Enby, I hear you--I usually just pick the most recent one, knowing that it might not always do the trick. But if someone has been doing it for so long, I kind of would have expected a number of talk pages with notes/warnings. Preferably notes since it seems that the editor was trying to contribute. Perhaps the block notice will prompt them into looking at a talk page; I'll try to click on the range a few times in the next few days just to see if they said something. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby: Good news – temporary accounts will be coming to the English Wikipedia soon(ish), and one of their effects will be that anonymous editors using IPv6 connections have much stabler identities (including, but not limited to, their talkpages). jlwoodwa (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Upd Edit - project sock?

    [edit]

    Upd Edit (talk · contribs)

    This account has no edits beyond the open letter talk page and offer nothing constructive. I think this is a project sock. I seek a block on the account as such. I would considered myself being WP:INVOLVED given my participation in related discussions. The account has been notified. – robertsky (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This diff Sounds like something an admin with very specific skills may be able to deal with. @Smartse do you think you'd be able to help out? A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 09:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What leads you to the conclusion that this is a sock, rather than, for example, someone who has been editing unregistered but has decided to register in order to comment on that talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a possibility that an unregistered editor registering an account to comment on the page, but the likelihood would be low in my opinion. The open letter is publicised mainly to registered editors via the the watchlist notice. The talk page isn't restricted in any manner so anyone can comment, even when unregistered. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an IP editor I can say I saw this the same day it was created, it was very attention grabbing with all the people editing, no watchlist needed. I see now that Phil Bridger announced the open letter at the village pump too, afterwards. That is to say, this is not some obscure thing (not that you claimed it was).
    Here is a question: if this is the sock of someone, IP or not, would it not be a valid reason for creating a single sock(privacy)? – 2804:F1...F5:391A (::/32) (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as a valid type of sock account? -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is unregistered editor trying to shield their IP addrees, sure. But if it is a registered editor? How so? WP:PROJSOCK only allow project sock accounts if the discussion affects their account directly. The issue, the court case, at hand affects only three editors. It may not be beneficial of them to participate in the discussions in any manner as we already have seen that the plaintiff's lawyers had tried to bring in last minute arguments such one of the three editors participating in the open letter and paint everyone here in unfavourable light. Any claims that this case will affect one's privacy of others in the future is WP:CRYSTAL as it is open ended at the moment. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that responding to an open letter on a sensitive political subject would be a legit sock in the spirit of "privacy" (and maybe "security"), and the fact that the discussion has hundreds of participants means that the negative effects of a project sock are vastly reduced. I'd change my position on that if they were obviously tag-teaming with a regular account, or if they were trying to dominate the discussion in some way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without knowing whose sock they are, there is not much to be done here unless a Checkuser drops by and decides they should investigate. But I don't see this editor's 5 edits as being disruptive and warranting a block. They might be an SPA and just be interested in this court case but but being an SPA doesn't violate any policies. Many of our current editors started off as SPAs and grew to be interested in other subjects as their skills improved.
    But there is another case brought to ANI (see below) about suspicions of editors participating in this discussion about this WMF mess and what POV they might be pushing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may not be “dominating the conversation” but it does have some features in common. (On the other hand they haven’t edited in more than a day, so this is probably moot.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This complaint seems related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE right below this one. I was just reviewing the Open Letter talk page, to try to answer a question for ACE2024, and I noticed a number of brand new accounts stirring things up there. I'd say, let's see if this behavior continues into this week and then see if it still needs to be addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimicky1, Armenian genocide denial, personal attacks, disregard of Wiki policies, WP:BLOCKEVASION

    [edit]

    Wikimicky1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Wikimicky1 has not only engaged in several attacks despite being told no to, they have also disregarded our policies. This includes openly admitting that they don't care about this site and that they were blocked for being a sock of indeffed Armenian genocide denier User:Ungitow, while simultaneously denying the Armenian genocide.

    They said this in one of their first edits on 7 May 2022: Hi, apparently I have been blocked along with user:Ungitow. Some donkeys (admins) thought I was associated with the editor. Hilarious. These admins are lowly cowards and they surely don’t care about justice or the truth. I don’t care about Wikipedia a bit anymore. They can block me as much as they like. They can’t silence me in the real world! No, I don’t believe in the so-called Armenian massacres also referred to as by another name. Call it denial. It never happened the way propagators say it did. The truth shall not be silenced. Peace.

    Personal attacks:

    Keeps disregarding (WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS) the plethora of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS based on it [28] regarding the ethnicity of al-Biruni, resorting to edit warring [29] and openly disregarding it in the articles talk page [30]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a bit surprised to see this on the verge of being auto-archived. Am I missing something here? I tried to make the report as reader friendly as possible. Wikimicky1 literally openly admitted to being blocked for socking as an Armenian genocide denialist, while simultaneously denying the Armenian genocide, i.e. WP:BLOCKEVASION. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess an admin didn't see it? 172.99.146.47 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not associated with the other user/editor. The above allegations hold no truth. HistoryofIran is trying to frame me because he could not deal with my logical argument and the reliable sources I provided. See Talk:Al-Biruni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimicky1 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment : Anybody who takes a look at the talk page of Wikimicky1 may see a wall of warnings, this editor is all but a net positive to this project, support indef as per WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a difficult situation. The behavior of the editor was clearly not exemplary, and they had a bunch of warnings at their talk page. However, in the Al Biruni episode, when they were pointed out to the RfC they stopped edit-warring. They have never been blocked, and imo in this situation blocking indef only makes sense per WP:NOTHERE - and while they clearly exhibit indications of NOTHERE, they are here not only to push pro-Turkic POV, but also to make positive contribution. (I can not comment on the statement that they are a sock of blocked user, the best is probably to open a SPI - if they are a sock they of course need to be blocked). More appropriately, one would start with short blocks and escalating them, eventually to an indefinite block - but blocking for the Al Biruni episode would look like punishment at this point. Every admin if welcome to disagree with me, but I think the only reasonable course of action is to wait whether this behavior comes back, and, if yes, block. I will add their talk page to my watchlist and see whether I can this myself (though I am generally busy these days in real life).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Ymblanter. Unfortunately the SPI will probably come out stale, since it was two years ago. I had already mentioned the RFC twice to Wikimicky1 [31] [32], only to be met with insults and edit warring, which wasn't the first time they've done that. Heck, even right now in this very thread they're saying that "above allegations hold no truth." and "he could not deal with my logical argument and the reliable sources I provided." showing that they haven't learned anything. This user is WP:NOTHERE imo. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe they had some few "positive contribution", but this editor is all but a net positive to this project. Another case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE

    [edit]

    These two recently created accounts, TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa have not contributed any edits to any Wikipedia articles, and spend their time defending the Indian government/courts in the discussions regarding the Wikipedia/ANI court case and the reaction of the community to it. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Cortador (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit to the user talk of User:Zubehamoreha, another seeming SPA, may indicate some form of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it. Looking at the report about Upd_Edit above and the ban of Djano Chained (another SPA), this seems to be a wider issue. Cortador (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna suggest we also check out User:Dzień dobrry who has a similar editing pattern. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pov pushing on the tigris page

    [edit]
    NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
    User was blocked, nothing more to do here Babysharkboss2!! (XXX) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the tigris page an editor is accussing me of racism for reverting unexplained content removal. While I personally don't fully understand the exact POV being pushed, I have seen cases similar to this before and it seems to possibly be related to anti-armenian sentiment. The editor in question is User:78.174.74.155. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay I was going to give them a warning but the moment I posted this they were blocked. Should I still post the ANI noticeboard template? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page abuse: User:Krpzy

    [edit]
    TPA removed by Bbb23 Star Mississippi 16:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Krpzy (talk · contribs) is abusing their talk page after block. Please revoke TPA. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attacks, edit war in contentious topic

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    for personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Special:GoToComment/c-CmsrNgubane-20241115171700-Manyareasexpert-20241115135300 personal attacks - Your responses are clearly emotional, you refuse to accept the reality, This is a classic display of cognitive dissonance, your bias really blind you this much

    Some kind of threats? I really wanted to avoid being aggressive but it seems this is the only language you'll will understand. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war: adds contested content [33] , pushes it with edit war [34] claiming "vandalism", again [35] , adds [36] WP:TASS, removes [37] no relevance tag. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial blocked indefinitely from BRICS, as this seems to be the main locus of the disruptive editing. However, looking back through their contributions, I'm not sure if this will be enough to stop the disruption. I'm considering this a normal admin block, though it does seem to arguably fall under CTOP/EE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SarekOfVulcan, you might consider extending this partial block to Talk:BRICS as this is where personal attacks are happening. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm waiting to see what happens when he next edits. If anyone sees the need to broaden the block before then, I don't mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for losing my temper yesterday, I think I was frustrated that nobody was willing to hear my point of view, nonetheless I admit now that I went out of line with some of my responses and I deeply regret that. I just want to appeal directly to you to reverse the block as I am deeply passionate about the BRICS project and I believe I can contribute a lot to the article for years to come.
    Best wishes CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to express my deepest of apologies, I regret losing my composure in that manner. CmsrNgubane (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After taking time to think about this clearly, I've decided to withdraw my request to be unblocked because I know that I will end up in another battle because I do not cower to any man , I fight for what I believe in and do so feverishly and it's a trait of mine that I am proud of, therefore I will not change my personality for anonymous people on Wikipedia and if this statement that I've just made earns me a total block then I am prepared for that, infact I've just realised that I've been wasting precious time guarding articles for what reason actually?, it's been good being part of the community for awhile but it's now time for me dedicate my free time on endeavours that actually pay money. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting edit-warring at Cape independence with bizarre summaries. Borgenland (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good morning sir, I just want to take this time to clarify the contentions on the Cape independence article, I believe that it is correct to classify the group as a separatist organisation since it seeks to break apart from South Africa, furthermore I would like to inequivacally stress that none of my edits are made with the intentions of disrupting, I make the edits based on approved citations, I have recently developed a passion for editing and I want to help contribute to making Wikipedia better for the reader.
    Kind regards CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything I said is true and factual, you are just soft as hell, yes this is a personal attack, now go cry to Mommy and Daddy and tell them to block me completely. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Request granted. Sitewide indef block. —C.Fred (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CmsrNgubane. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pusher at Naidu

    [edit]

    Filmpassion6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Naidu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Filmpassion6 has been persistently adding/modifying material on Naidu that consist of their original research based on unreliable sources, including Wikipedia articles, despite being clearly warned not to and having had their edits repeated reverted with edit summaries indicating the same. Their edit summaries, their comment on the talk page, and their comments on my talk page also indicate an intention for POV pushing. I do not believe that they are capable of making positive contributions, either due to their POV or an inability to understand Wikipedia's policies, hence a block may be required. Liu1126 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oddly specific targeted vandalism

    [edit]
    Closing, as requested. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Do admins have the ability to block the word "Ponyo" on January 8–10, 2024 North American storm complex? There's someone who appears to have a grudge against User:Ponyo hopping IPs while editing that article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just a sock, exposing their IP addresses that will inevitably be blocked for longer and longer periods. Not very clever, and WP:RBI works.-- Ponyobons mots 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the question, short of an edit filter I don't think that's possible, but I did restore the protection that expired earlier today. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your responses. Would one of you two be kind enough to mark this as closed? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lovemuhcko and IDHT

    [edit]

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

    As shown on their talk page, Lovemuhcko (who began editing in 2019 and became more active in 2023) has recently showed issues with IDHT and competence:

    While they are sometimes good at giving me ideas on what articles to create, they have still continued their disruptive behavior despite being warned that this could get them blocked, so I'm concerned they're WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with this project. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So I not edits for in the future and I will limit these edits anymore and please not been blocked or banned to edits and still continue to editing will to limited from now. Lovemuhcko (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lovemuhcko: I don't think promising to restrict your edits is enough here. The general issue here is that you've repeatedly ignored people's concerns about your editing, so there's a substantial chance that it might later spill over to other areas on this project, leaving us with more work to clean up afterwards. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember this editor. My first encounter to them was on April 2023 when they removed the Stub tag on Madoka Asahina article without an explanation. I restored the tag, explaining that the article was currently assessed as Stub, and warned them on their talk page. Since then, I restored the Stub tags that they removed from other articles, to the point I got exhausted and just removed those articles from my watchlist or just started ignoring them even if I know what they did was wrong. It seems that their editing involving Stub tag removal doesn't stop, with recent being this week. I hope this ANI will get the editor's attention: they can expand the Stub articles instead before removing the template. Centcom08 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-archive update

    [edit]

    After this thread was archived as inactive, they returned to editing and continued removing stub tags from obvious stubs (Special:Diff/1256464176, Special:Diff/1256464167), both of which I've reverted. I'm unarchiving it due to concerns about their behavior. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them from mainspace due to the resumption of the same problematic editing despite a promise above. I also question whether they have the English language skills to edit here, but they're welcome to use draftspace. Star Mississippi 01:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi, a stub is an article too short and incomplete to provide more than rudimentary information. When I look at The Case Book of Arne, I see an article that should be assessed as "Start" rather than "Stub". Take a look at the article, which has nine sentences of prose and six references. Then, take a look at how Wikipedia:Content assessment describes stubs and start articles, and explain to me how this article is a stub? I see far more than "rudimentary information". So, why is is removing the stub tag being held against this editor? Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That one is more borderline than Murder Mystery of the Dead which is a clearly wrong de-tagging IMO. Personally I'd have left Arne as a stub but I also don't think this editor has the experience to be assessing article quality. That said, zero objection to you or any other editor lifting the block if you think it was wrong @Cullen328. I'm about to log off so please don't wait on me for any action. Star Mississippi 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi, I do not object to the block from mainspace because the editor's contributions clearly have some significant competence issues. What I've done is upgrade The Case Book of Arne to start. This editor can demonstrate competence through well-referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Some competence issues are intractable. On the other hand, "English language skills" is an area where serious effort, study and ongoing day-to-day experience can accomplish wonders, although it takes time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    156.146.153.231

    [edit]
    Blocked for 1 week for vandalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nearly all edits of 156.146.153.231 (talk · contribs) were reverted. Plenty of warnings, was blocked for 31h. Time to take a closer look. --Altenmann >talk 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BrocadeRiverPoems behavioral issues

    [edit]

    I am making this report because I recently found this post (found by searching up the username of the user in question), where the suspicious editing patterns of this user was brought up in a similarly contentious article with another user complaining about the exact same patterns of hostility and dogpiling: [39]. This report was made through the lens of someone involved in the article 15.ai, so if anyone who was involved in the maintenance of the article Yasuke could chime in, that would be very much appreciated.

    The user User:BrocadeRiverPoems has demonstrated a clear pattern of editing that prioritizes ideological alignment over adherence to Wikipedia's core policies, including neutrality, reliable sourcing, and civility. In multiple contentious discussions, such as those surrounding the articles on Yasuke and 15.ai, has engaged in aggressive and accusatory behavior that discourages meaningful collaboration among editors. Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives ([40], [41], [42]). These actions have not only disrupted the editing process but have also led to a hostile environment on talk pages, alienating other contributors and stalling productive dialogue ("I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1). Anyone who dares to disagree with this user are met with harsh accusations and hounding, and despite being a relatively new user to Wikipedia themselves, the user is happy to scrutinize the editing patterns of anyone who isn't active on Wikipedia 24/7 ("With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1; "It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article." from the same page, "Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article"). (see: the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems). Hypocritcally, they consistently spend a great deal of time and effort dissecting the verbiage of every editor that disagrees with them down to every individual word, but are also happy to offer circumstantial evidence to support their argument, such as accusations of off-wiki coordination ("The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing", "Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus.", "Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the WP:DRN and the continued edit warring by User:RocketKnightX and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from User:HackerKnownAs, I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard." from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. and "See Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai. [...] This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination." despite my insistence that I have never participated in off-wiki manipulation). For example, they stress that they have "pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them", and yet were happy to make edits that unashamedly violate WP:YESPOV like [43], which I had to edit (before my edit was eventually reverted).

    Several people have been affected by this user's hostile behavior, myself included ("I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back." from this very thread). Their confrontational approach to editing and discussion has created an intimidating atmosphere that discourages constructive dialogue ("As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit.") and the condescending attitude towards those who take breaks in between editing Wikipedia (" Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again.") does not help at all, and violates WP:DEADLINE. For instance, in my interactions with them, I was met with accusatory language and baseless claims of single-purpose editing, despite my efforts to engage respectfully and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Other editors have similarly expressed frustration with this user’s tendency to dismiss opposing views outright and escalate disagreements into personal attacks or relentless scrutiny of editing patterns.

    Furthermore, it was brought to my attention in Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 that this user possibly belongs to a Discord server that has been allegedly coordinating off-wiki efforts to influence the content and direction of certain articles for months, including 15.ai. This raises serious concerns about violations of Wikipedia’s policy on COI and potential breaches of neutrality and good faith editing, especially with IP users like 180.129.92.142 suddenly coming out of the woodwork and virulently attacking me and throwing several serious accusations at me.

    To summarize, editors have expressed that the user in question has violated the following Wikipedia policies:

    • WP:GOODFAITH
      • "You've crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns"
      • Made accusations about single-purpose editing without evidence
      • Claimed "The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing"
    • WP:CIVIL
      • Made hostile and condescending responses that led one user to say "I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back"
      • Created an environment on multiple discussion pages where editors felt their contributions were viewed with suspicion just because they took breaks or haven't contributed to Wikipedia as much as the editor in question
    • WP:HOUND
      • Followed and criticized specific editors' break patterns: "With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
      • Continuously questioned others' editing motives
    • WP:DEADLINE
      • Criticized editors for taking breaks: "you made few edits after you assessed the article and then you left for 6 months"
      • Used breaks as evidence of suspicious behavior: "returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
      • Questioned legitimacy of contributions based on activity patterns
    • WP:NPOV
      • Made edits that blatantly violate WP:NPOV (e.g. [44])
      • Misrepresented sources to support preferred narratives
    • WP:RS
      • Deleted sources they personally deemed unreliable
      • Misrepresented reliable sources to support their preferred narratives
      • Deleted a number of sources used in the article (not all sources must be perfectly neutral; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which says "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") and then claimed that the subject did not meet notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible WP:SOCK and WP:COI manipulations

    I have never made a report like this before on Wikipedia, so I do not know if this is the proper way to do this. I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Wikipedia. I have also tried to always assume good faith, and I am hoping that this incident can be resolved. Thank you for your time, and I hope to continue contributing to Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This, of course, completely disregards the fact that most editors agree with BrocadeRiverPoems's edits. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know @HackerKnownAs, you haven't participated I can't find any traces of you in this RFC, which took place at the bottom of the page. This RFC has been up since 4th of November , and the discussion whether 15.ai should be in the past tense is since 7th of November. At least discuss there before reverting other editors consensus. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 13:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even @BrocadeRiverPoems has discussed there, why haven't you done that too? 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 13:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins please ban HackerKnownAs! Its so obvious his edits are only to make trouble. Andthewinnerisme (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad
    this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this)
    i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors Rin6626 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't even aware that an RFC was up, let alone know what an RFC was. I apologize for my ignorance, but I've largely stayed away from Wikipedia politics in favor of making edits that I believe contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HackerKnownAs: Firstly, you are required to notify the user you are reporting on their talk page, using the template provided at the top of this page.
    Secondly, can you explain this edit where you appear to further an edit war in order to make a point?
    Thirdly, can you explain why Wikipediocracy is being used as "evidence", both here and in the previous diff? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I have never made a report like this before, so I was not aware of the first point. I will make that notification after I finish writing this.
    For the second point, I was under the assumption that being bold and making changes yourself was encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:BOLD. Again, I am sorry if this was seen as furthering an edit war; that was not my intention. My intention was to revert the article back to a stable point before all of the edit warring occurred.
    For the third point, I am not using it as evidence, but as supplemental material. I was not aware of this forum before I found this discussion, and I found it interesting and relevant that the exact same complaints that I and various other editors have had about this user were restated in this forum. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having taken a look at the talk page and the edit history of 15.ai, you are repeatedly restoring your preferred version against the consensus of multiple other editors, who have complained about this behaviour on the talk page.[46][47]
    I'll be blunt; this looks like a retaliatory, frivolous report full of WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd suggest to the admins that this be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Permalink/1257688676#15.ai behavioral issues., filed by BRP, may be relevant background to this filing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HackerKnownAs, each one of your many accusations has to be accompanied by a "diff" or edit illustrating an example of the behavior you are identifying or this report could be seen as casting aspersions. Evidence, not just suspicions, have to be present in a report. Also, if you have evidence of misbehavior in an off-Wikipedia platform, please send it to the Arbitration Committee, there are privacy concerns that make it inappropriate to be shared here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the underlying merits of this either way, I am pretty sure that everything here just had a whole ArbCom case about it. As such I'd support quick closing this as moot: if you go through a whole case where you were a party without sanctions, I don't think that bringing that same person to ANI right after for the same behavior is appropriate. Loki (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be a little sensitive to the whole "retaliatory-report-based-on-old-evidence" thing right now, but I'd think that alone should merit a BOOMERANG here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous discussion, the editor who posted in the AN was advised to bring it over to AN/I. I apologize if this was not appropriate – I was not aware. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the admin that stated that ANI was a more appropriate noticeboard for this level of specific complaints than the discussion that was started at AN which I closed. But, as I said, you need to start adding diffs soon to support your accusations or this could backfire on you. It's a risk of posting a complaint on a noticeboard that all parties are under scrutiny. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added my diffs. I apologize again for not following the appropriate formatting for this report. I will continue to edit to bring some more context. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HackerKnownAs, I feel like I'm throwing a lot of advice at you tonight but it is really distracting to editors who are approaching this case with fresh eyes to have so much content BOLDED. Using Bold or Italics can be used for highlighting an individual word but having half of your comments in Bold font will just turn readers off. It's a little overwhelming. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, but I attempted to follow the same formatting style as in the last AN report, where the relevant quotes were formatted differently from the original text. Is there an easier way to do this? HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider {{tq|q=y|Quote goes here...}} which renders as Quote goes here... EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for posting this. To User:GhostOfDanGurney and User:Liz, I’m one of the many editors that BrocadeRiverPoems has accused of single-purpose editing by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago. I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies. Even if no decision is made here, I hope that my statement brings some context to the situation and explains that this isn’t just User:HackerKnownAs posting out of retaliation, it’s all of us affected by it behind it. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, SirGallantThe4th, you have to provide diffs to support these claims of bad conduct. Other editors have to be able to review them to see if there is a basis to your allegations. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1
    I suggest you read this please. This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history. Why would a Wikipedean already taking a break due to personal life issues want to come back after reading that their contributions are meaningless because they weren’t making enough edits? It’s especially weird when someone goes through my history to try and prove my motives were evil. Bullying doesn’t have to be via name calling, it can be as simple as being cast as suspicious just because someone with more power or influence says so. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SirGallantThe4th, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1 was chock-ful of strange accusations about off-wiki collusions, I think if an admin had seen this, they would have shut this down before it went so far. First, I think you are mistaken that this editor has power and influence as they are a relatively new editor although they do have all of the terminology down. I'd just advise you that if someone is making unfounded allegations against you, don't feel like you have to spend your time on the project defending yourself. Explaining yourself can be useful in discussions like this one on ANI but this page was a review of an article, not an examination on the motives of the editors who worked on it and this discussion went completely off-the-rails.
    I will say though that it is very unusual for an editor with your level of experience to be doing GA reviews. How did you find yourself in this area of the project? Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given my suspicions have apparently been proven correct, can this be put to rest? User:SirGallantThe4th admits in their block appeal that they know HackerKnownAs [48] and have even met up in person. My suspicions about the GA assessment were, as it turns out, completely warranted. They also admit in their unblock request to essentially orchestrating harassment against me simply because they thought it was unfair that other editors were agreeing with me[49]. They specifically mention in their appeal that they were apart of a Discord together. It is not possible that an article submitted and primarily written by HackerKnownAs which was reviewed, evidently, by their friend SirGallantThe4th, to be neutrally reviewed and assessed as Good. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad
    this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this)
    i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors because theyre taking advantage of new editors who are new to wiki to make them look like idiots Rin6626 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being told I am bludgeoning again, the accusation that I am running a specifically transgender Discord that is dedicated to taking down MLP on Wikipedia is plainly absurd. I mean, if it pleases the jury I can record a video of me going through my Discord, you'll find no such existence of me owning this alleged Discord. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask, very politely, how you even came upon this ANI Discussion about me before even I did? It was posted 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC) and you joined the conversation at 05:51, 16 November 2024. You were not, to my understanding mentioned directly [50] in the complaint, nor were you notified on your TalkPage about it (you very well should have been, but then, so should I have been, and some other individuals as well). I'm just confused by it, I suppose, since you stated that I had made you feel so bullied that you logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. Given that you surely had 0 knowledge that there was going to be an ANI complaint posted about me, and you've never participated at ANI before, I'm just unsure as to how you go from never logging in again to happening upon an ANI discussion about me? Of course, you're totally free to complain about whatever conduct of mine you feel is egregious, I fully encourage and support it. As I said in my post below, I apologize if you feel that I bullied you, and I struck through the relevant comments. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will state that the reporting user is currently using WPO in an edit dif [51] for a reversion. Moreover, the WPO evidence that is being used against me is essentially a duplicate of an attack page which was G10'd [52] which pretty grossly misrepresents my activity on Yasuke at large. It's so much so of a misrepresentation of my activity that I didn't even warrant a Finding of Facts on the ARBCOM case at Yasuke Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Proposed_decision. My apologies for the length of my reply, but there is a lot of ground to cover in the accusations.
    Regarding Sources
    Their accusations against me here include a statement Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives. The offending sources I removed were mostly deemed unreliable by consensus, were WP:SPS, or were misrepresented. For instance, the wording of the article currently reads Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,", however, reading the sources they don't actually say that. Lauren Morton actually says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating[53] and, as I mentioned, doesn't mention 15.Ai specifically in terms of "fascinating", while Natalie Clayton says It's all very fascinating to read about[54].
    Andrew Ng's The Batch was declared an unreliable source when 15.ai was still a draft. Gwern describes itself as someone's personal website they use to remind themselves of stuff. I'm hardly the only editor that has found issues with the content of 15.ai.
    SPA Explanation
    where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems
    By myself, an others, historically, even[55]. And, as indicated by your edit history [56] as I linked in the Admin Noticeboard. The only reason I even brought this to the Admin Noticeboard initially is because of the blatant WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus was reached about issues regarding the article and you continue to ignore said consensus and make reverts to your preferred version. In our exchange, I reverted your reversion of an edit that had been developed as a DRN solution to a content dispute [57][58] and after your second revert in that exchange, I stopped.
    Discord Accusation
    As for the accusations leveraged against me elsewhere that I'm on some discord trying to get 15.ai deleted, there's no reality or merit to that statement. I came upon 15.ai browsing random articles, saw that an edit war was transpiring, and started noticing peculiarities about the article and made note of them and fixed what I could about the article. Notably, BrocadeRiverPoems is an identity that I use exclusively for Wikipedia and nothing regarding my Discord or my life outside of Wikipedia can be linked to my editing of Wikipedia. The most I will reveal about my real life is that I had a roommate who attended the same MA Program as I, and my former roommate would edit on Wikipedia. Said information is fully disclosed on my profile. Said roommate moved out, and I haven't really spoken to them since. As I have freely admitted elsewhere, I was an IP Editor for a time, and I made the account so I could make a post regarding the historical usage of the word "sayamaki" when editors were translating the mention of Yasuke being given a sayamaki.
    Hounding Accusation
    by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago
    Scouring through your edit history is a bit of an exaggeration. When I was looking at the Good Article Assessment after I found several problems with the article, I looked at the edit history of the Good Article Review process and discovered that you had only assessed one other article, and that that article had been deleted for copyvio. It isn't scouring your edit history to see and note that you assessed the article, that you left, and that you were specifically canvassed back[59] for the AfD and returned to vote keep at the AfD. All of that is on a singular page of edit history.
    Brigading Allegations
    It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies.
    I am unaware that I have such sway over anyone?
    It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others
    Again, these are false accusations that originate from a user who got blocked after harassing myself and others[60].
    AfD SPA Evidence
    As for my claims that the AfD was interfered with by SPA Vote Stuffing, it plainly was. [61][62][63][64]. These individuals had limited activity on Wikipedia usually only editing 15.ai or 15.ai's competitors before voting Keep in the AfD and then disappearing from the site. One account is even named "Throwaway" indicating it was created for the specific purpose of voting in the AfD. Considering your participation in an AfD to delete NovelAI[65] which was put up for deletion by an account similarly named [66], and NovelAI is a competitor to 15.ai in that, to my understanding, NovelAI offered TTS features, it looks as if accounts were created solely to influence the 15.ai vote.
    GA Discussion Rebuttal
    This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history.
    The page is chock full of me saying your editing contribution was suspicious because of the irregularities surrounding the article, and that regardless of that, the article should have never been assessed "Good" because it had numerous glaring issues including a source that is considered generally unreliable WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. As you can see in my initial statement, where I pointed out the unaddressed COI concern from 2022 that had been purged by a drive-by IP Editor and never properly addressed as one of many reasons the article should not have been assessed as good. My statements regarding your activity were to highlight that you were an inexperienced reviewer whose only other Good Article assessment was an article that was deleted because of copyvio, which is not a good sign for the other article. I likewise noted that your activity ceased and resumed only to defend 15.ai, as Good Article reviewers are supposed to be uninvolved in the articles which they assess. Your later statement It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 only further solidfied my belief that you shouldn't have reviewed the article, because you seem to have an interest in the topic.
    If you feel that I have hounded or bullied you, than I apologize and I'll go strike it out right now.
    Off-Site Manipulation Evidence
    As for statements that I make baseless claims about off-site manipulation of the article, Anonymous uses at PPP discuss fabricating sources [67]. When the article was published, it was announced on the PPP according to the archived discussion that was used as a literal source in the article [68]. Likewise, [69] and [70]. When the image was deleted from the Wikimedia commons for copyvio, they re-uploaded it as non-freeuse which I put up for deletion because it didn't fulfill the non-free use policy requirements [71]. The Level of the Pony Preservation Project's involvement in 15.ai is apparently to such an extent that HackerKnownAs created an entire redirect to 15.ai of Pony Preservation Project[72] [73]. Here are people claiming the Wikipedia article is someone's reputation [74] Here is a post directing people to use 15.ai for the history of the PPP [75]. Here is a post discussing even creating the article [76], dated 07 Mar 2020, with the article being created 05 Apr 2020 [77].
    Talk Page COI Deletion
    As for the argument that I only push things that support myself, the user who seems vigilant about vandalism did not bat an eyelash in regard to the deletion by an IP Address that other than apparently engaging in BLP Vandalism, only removed a talk page discussion about their potential COI editing [78][79] shortly before the article was nominated for GA Status.
    Unconstructive Edit Rebuttal
    As for my edits being "unconstructive", I removed a Medium link that was members only, and a Gwern link that directly referenced the Wikipedia article [80], I removed a cited tweet that didn't say what it was being cited for as well as a Gwern link that didn't mention the PPP or 15.ai directly [81]. Here, I removed Andrew Ng who was being misrepresented and Tyler Crowen's blog because the blog is a WP:SPS and Tyler Crown is an economist, not an expert in AI. [82], I later found out that Andrew Ng was declared an unreliable source when the article was a draft, but was re-added after the draft was released as an erroneously flagged minor edit [83] and I removed WeGotThisCovered and more Andrew Ng [84]. Beyond those edits, I reverted HackerKnownAs when he undid the compromise that was decided at DRN which HackerKnownAs reverted and I did not further contest.
    My next edit on the main article was undoing a user randomly changing the dates of maintenance tags and in the article [85].
    Misrepresentation Evidence
    At the Good Article Reassessment when I pointed out flaws in the reviews, I was asked Are you able to fix these issues by AirshipJungleman29 and so I did [86]. I also corrected the contents of the Japanese sources since they seemed to be google translated and were wrong [87]. Roughly translated, the Japanese actually states Some users used 15.ai to show a demonstration of their use of GLaDOS for an assistant by using the tool “VoiceAttack,” which enables a PC to be controlled by voice. At this point, it looks like Siri-esque sorcery. Perhaps in the future, through the power of such services, there may be an assistant that can assist the user with a voice of his/her choice!, which is not quite the same as saying "15.ai is like magic". Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [88] that these defamatory accusations harvested from an attack page that was recreated on WPO are continuing to be thrown around. Noting, again, that the original content of this so-called evidence used was originally created by a user who engaged in a campaign of harassment against myself and other editors, see User:Nocomputersintexas and [89], specifically, the removed edits from the IP Editor specifically mention 4chan and directing individuals from 4chan to harass me. This coming from User:RocketKnightX who, during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [90][91]. Given the user's edit warring at 15.ai [92][93][94][95][96] and their continuing edit warring [97] [98] I suggest at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX.
    Likewise, as per above, I also propose WP:BOOMERANG on User:HackerKnownAs, and would request the defamatory edit history of [99] be expunged for WP:NPA. User:HackerKnownAs continues to ignore TalkPage consensus [100][101]. Looking at their edit information, they rarely engage in talkpages and have extensively edited 4chan and 15.ai in particular, which I feel qualifies them as a WP:SPA [102] defined in WP:SPA as A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose and that single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Their statements about 15.ai show a strong personal opinion about 15.ai to the point of accusing a nomination at AfD as being badfaith [103] and stating themself that was extremely crucial in the development of TTS voice generation[104]. However, despite a few editors making this claim, no substantial reliable source has ever been provided to support this claim. Furthermore, User:HackerKnownAs has made numerous wide-sweeping reversions in the name of fighting vandalism that indiscriminately remove constructive edits to return to the article to a state they personally approve of [105][106][107].
    They also misrepresented the sources[108] that they added to the reception section in what amounts to editorlization. As noted above, neither of the articles cited actually refer to 15.ai itself as fascinating. The user also shows WP:OWNERBEHAVIOR in their constant reversion to their preferred version and their refusal to participate in consensus building [109] or Dispute Resolution despite being invited to participate after their reversions [110]. As you can see here [111] they have not participated in any meaningful discussion on 15.ai's talkpage since 2022. During the AfD for the article, HackerKnownAs WP:CANVASSED User:SirGallantThe4th, and SirGallant alone, to the AfD [112] at the time this occurred, the AfD was leaning toward Delete. Afterward, the SPA's I noted above also arrive and vote Keep. I do not know what manner of sanction would be appropriate, but I do feel that edit summary should be expunged if possible.
    I also would like to propose that User:Rin6626 is blatantly WP:NOTHERE, as all they have done is make baseless accusations [113][114][115] since creating their account. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked. Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you
    i wish i had more screenshots on me before i left that server but youre mistaken if youre gonna get away with this
    to the admins of this place brocade is known for gaslighting people on discord, theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it) Rin6626 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you
    I can assure you this is completely untrue.
    theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it)
    The amount of times I've been reprimanded sorta runs afoul this theory that I know everything about the Wikipedia rules, does it not? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an aside, I've blocked Rin6626 as WP:NOTHERE. The allegations above, mixed with the fact that this is a brand new account, tells me at best they are here to stir up trouble, and at worst this is a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So is no one going to address the suspicious circumstances surrounding User:BrocadeRiverPoems and X0n10ox (now [116])? They admit to sharing the same IP address and display identical editing patterns as documented in [117], with the questionable explanation of being "roommates" during the Yasuke-Wikipedia controversy just four months ago.
    Consider the sequence of events:
    1. X0n10ox makes multiple Yasuke-related edits
    2. They delete their account claiming "their username was posted on 4chan"
    3. Days later, BrocadeRiverPoems appears, makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection
    4. BrocadeRiverPoems then advocates the identical position as their supposed roommate, exhibiting the same confrontational attitude that other editors have noted concerns about
    This pattern should raise serious WP:SOCK concerns. The coincidences are difficult to ignore:
    • Same IP address
    • Similar editing style
    • Same topic focus
    • Similar behavioral patterns
    • Suspicious timing
    What's particularly ironic is that this user has a history of challenging other editors based on suspicious editing patterns. I anticipate they or their cronies will attempt to dismiss this analysis based on the fact that I'm posting as an IP editor.
    Furthermore, we're now seeing IP editors consistently defending BrocadeRiverPoems across multiple discussions. The first reply to this thread is a perfect example. These patterns warrant closer examination. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the supposed alternate account never edits it does not matter. Per WP:CLEANSTART this is allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't about WP:CLEANSTART itself -- it's about the pattern of behavior continuing unchanged. While users are allowed fresh starts, the concerning aspect here is that the same confrontational editing style and topic focus immediately resumed under the new account. WP:CLEANSTART is suppose dto give editors a chance to start fresh with better practices, not to simply continue problematic and alienating behavior under a different name. To quote,
    • "The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior."
    We should also note that this isn't just about past behavior - we're seeing active patterns with the IP editors consistently appearing to defend BrocadeRiverPoems's positions. This suggests the account may not be operating independently, which goes beyond the scope of a clean start. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at this diff [118] (out of many, many of them -- I just chose one at random) where he berates an editor for not responding within a week, stating "Those who are opposed to its inclusion, and those that believe it should be a minority view, have had ample time in the past week to furnish any reliable source that would substantiate their claims." This shows a problematic assumption that Wikipedia editors should be constantly available and able to respond within an arbitrary timeframe. It fails to acknowledge that editors are volunteers who have lives outside Wikipedia and may not be able to participate in discussions on someone else's schedule. This is blatant WP:BATTLEGROUNDING and a continuation of the past problematic behavior. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you post the evidence here or at an WP:SPI, instead of in an external website, maybe a response will come faster. – 2804:F1...C6:3070 (::/32) (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, anyone with a brain see that the roommate excuse is BS. Question is will the admins do something about it or let it happen and let them go round bullying more people because he is a special group. 198.136.190.5 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of "please block me" going on in this thread. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, CLEANSTART does not apply here for two reasons: One is that X0n10ox appears to have vanished. Vanishing is a deal you make where you are promising that you are going away, permanently, and your account is renamed to something gibberishy.
    The other is that if the new account displays the same behaviors of the old account, it is not a clean start.
    I would also add, following along from comments way up the thread, that putting a link to WPO in an edit sumarry to "prove" someone is a sock and therefore justify a revert is way, way out of line. That's absolutely not valid proof of anything, and if you are going to accuse someone of socking, gather your actual evidence and file an WP:SPI. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I shouldn't have to point out that deliberately misgendering me and saying I'm part of a "special group" is pretty incivil per WP:EDPRONOUNS which notes ARBCOM here[119]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is hopefully the last time I have to post about this. The entire argument that I'm a sock hinges on the fact that I disclosed I had a roommate as suggested by WP:ROOMMATE which says Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry., the same page reads When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics..
    Roommate Note
    I did not participate on Talk Yasuke while my roommate was still active on Wikipedia. My roommate was also quite vociferously in support of a particular position [120] [121].
    My first involvement in Yasuke as an IP Address was in relation to sources and interested me because of a mention of the Tang Dynasty [122][123], as my edit history shows, I have a wide interest in Ancient Chinese history. Compared to my roommate's rather vocal support to Yasuke being definitively declared as a Samurai, my own activity has been more moderate [124] and I created an RFC that quite literally supported the opposite position of my roommate [125][126]. Again, notably, at the ARBCOM case there were no sanctions or findings of fact relating to me. However, the evidence that was submitted about my participation shows that my editing differed from that of my roommate[127]
    Complaint Origin
    The user who created the original attack page accusing me of being a bully and a sockpuppet of my roommate had their talkpage comments removed by another editor [128] for NOTFORUM. As the user had already been warned [129] I had posted [130] another warning because I felt that they at least deserved to receive a warning notification since their talkpage activity had been deleted.
    The editor in question proceeded to claim I was ganging up on them with Symphony and Gitz[131] and then created an entire narrative about all three of us that was later G10'd. Said user, after being blocked, started posting on 4chan directing people to harass me with one post reading On their own userpage they admit they have the SAME IP as "X0n10ox". It's obviously the SAME person who has created a new account to hide their past history. Outside of that, I was mentioned semi-favorably [132] where my editing at Yasuke was described Though we have disagreed strongly at times, their contributions to this topic, while occasionally verbose, have been cogent and constructive, which does not seem to align with the narrative that I am bullying people off Yasuke and heavily patrolling it. Accusations, again, which the ARBCOM did not see necessary to address. In my last trip to ANI, it was under the accusation that I was an anti-Yasuke sockpuppet master [133] which was ultimately closed by the complaining party after a handful of people opposed their proposal.
    Re:Sock Activity
    So my question is if I am a sockpuppet of my former roommate, what, exatly, of the criteria of being a sock have I met outside of disclosing that we shared an IP Address for a time? My roommate wasn't blocked or subject to any sanction, my participation in Yasuke came after he departed Wikipedia, and his stance was firmly "Yasuke was unambiguously a Samurai" while I have expressed reasonable doubt based on available sources and was brought to ANI for essentially having the opposite stance? The sole basis of the accusations on the attack page and on the subsequent WPO thread is the fact that I did what WP:ROOMMATE told me to do to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. Since doing that, it has done nothing but result in said accusations. The entire farce of a complaint that was deleted was petty retaliation because I had posted a warning on a user's talkpage for WP:NOTFORUM as the user in question had posted a bunch of stuff about Symphony Regalia on Talk Yasuke that Gitz removed. The "bullying" which they refer to is the fact that Gitz removed the offending content, and that I felt it was only appropriate that the user in question should be notified of what they'd done wrong.
    Timeline
    As for the accusation I appeared "days later", my roommate departed [134], I created my account over a full month later on 27 July 2024[135], I first posted in Yasuke on 19 June 2024. I created the account because Talk Yasuke was rightly locked to IP Editors, and I was trying to relay information about the historical usage of sayamaki [136] as users were making incorrect statements about what a sayamaki could mean. I also find the characterization that I makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection to be confusing, because I was using the suggested edits dashboard to take me to pages which I did my best to improve based on what the dashboard told me they needed, which in most cases were sources [137][138] [139][140][141][142][143]. This is activity which did not abruptly stop when I began participating in Yasuke, either [144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155] As you can see from many of those diffs, I was directed to articles as part of newcomer tasks, and if you look at my history, my usage of that suggested editing persists long after I was allowed to participate in Talk Yasuke myself.
    Ongoing Harassment
    These continually baseless accusations which are unfortunately part of a harassment campaign. Per the ARBCOM's Finding of Facts [156] Participants in the dispute have been subject to harassment, both on and off of Wikipedia. (BrocadeRiverPoems evidence, Symphony Regalia evidence) Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC). The very WPO thread that is being used to lodge this complaint is a thread I submitted as evidence to ARBCOM[157]. It is worth repeating, again, that ARBCOM did not sanction me despite having access to the WPO accusations. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very minor point but I just read through much of this dispute and I have a question: What on Earth is the "Pony Preservation Project" and what does this group have to do with Wikipedia and our article about artificial intelligence? Thanks for humoring me, it's my reward for reading all of this. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, and this is advice to any editor, do not post 12-15 diffs when you can make the same point with 2 to 3 diffs. No one who is reviewing this is going to look at all of those diffs, that is just excessive. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for over-supplying diffs, I just wanted to substantiate that the activity they were calling unusual was activity I long continued even after I had access to Yasuke. As for the "Pony Preservation Project" and what it has to do with Wikipedia and an article on Wikipeida, it appears to be a group of MLP Fans originating on 4chan /mlp/ board who supported 15.ai's development. I only know about them because I was reviewing the sources used on 15.ai and one of the sources directed me to a "desuchan" archive of the "Pony Preservation Project" on 4chan where they were actively dicussing editing the article, with one anonymous user asking another user to fabricate sources, even. The thanks section of 15.ai's archived website reads The importance of /mlp/ throughout the development of this project cannot be overstated – once again, I thank each and every one of you anonymous contributors.[158]. Considering their involvement with the development of 15.ai, and the fact that they were actively discussing in the source archive making changes to the article, I felt it prudent to flag the article for potential WP:COI. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BrocadeRiverPoems, thank you so much for rearranging your responses in this complaint. They are much more readable and are more likely to be read by other editors or admins. Thanks for the explanation of PPP. I was lost there among the conspiracy theories. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem! Sorry again for the massive posts. I am trying to get better about that. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ** Are there any outstanding issues that need to be resolved before this complaint is closed? Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz: the OP has been CU blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this, M.Bitton. But when the checkuser, Ivanvector, was asked to close this complaint (see below), he said that there still might be outstanding issues to resolve so that is what prompted me to ask if there were any. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only outstanding issue is the original issue that caused this drama, the edit warring, which I shall repost in brevity here for the sake of ease.
    I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [159]. User:RocketKnightX during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [160][161]. Given the user's persistent edit warring at 15.ai [162][163][164][165][166] and their continuing edit warring [167] [168] and refusal to participate in dispute resolution on talk-pager discussion in a meaningful manner[169][170][171], I propose at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll probably be helpful (for me at least) if you add a separate section with the TBAN proposal. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will do. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Underlying Content Dispute

    [edit]

    Like many conduct disputes in Wikipedia, this started as a content dispute. The content dispute was over 15.ai, in particular as to what the infobox should say the status of the web site was. A request for mediation was filed at DRN. The filing editor was blocked indefinitely for conduct unrelated to the 15.ai dispute, but there were multiple editors who agreed to the ground rules, so I began moderated discussion. User:RocketKnightX was one of the editors who was invited to take part. They made a brief statement but did not take part in the following discussion. That discussion resulted in agreement to revise the article to state, in the infobox, that the web site was abandoned. They then revised the article as agreed, but RocketKnightX reverted with a brief statement. I asked them if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer. At this point the other editors and I agreed that an RFC was the next step. The RFC is currently in progress, at Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site. The DRN discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai.

    That was the 15.ai content dispute. User:HackerKnownAs also refers to the Yasuke dispute. Although User:BrocadeRiverPoems was named as a party in the Yasuke dispute, there was no finding of fact against her. HackerKnownAs could have entered evidence, and did not. The handwave by HackerKnownAs against Brocade is unsubstantiated.

    The 15.ai content dispute appears to have been forgotten, or overtaken by personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for supplying this summary, Robert McClenon. Reading over the entire process, it seems like the dispute was resolved among participating editors on problematic wording but when it was implemented, the content change was reverted by editors who had not taken part in the DRN process. Hence the RFC that is going on. I hope you don't see your efforts as wasted as it does seem like a lot of ground was covered over the course of the DRN discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, User:Liz. I consider a DRN to have been productive if it results in an RFC. In that case, the DRN provides the discussion before the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread was a troll operation, and the trolls have been turned to stone by the light of a type G main sequence star and a special mirror that looks under bridges and in caves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The troll who started this thread has been put to bed - why not do the same with their mess by closing it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctioning HackerKnownAs

    [edit]
    HackerKnownAs et. al. blocked for sockpuppetry. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HackerKnownAs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I suggest that for constantly reverting against consensus, HackerKnownAs is indefinitely page blocked from 15.ai. 2400:79E0:8040:78D9:1808:A4BB:1E8:1F62 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, an IP in your ::/42 range blanked User:Ltbdl/sandbox a while after Ltbdl was blocked following violations of topic bans... Ltbdl was involved in some things related to 15.ai. Now, far be it for me to acuse someone of being a block evader (without evidence), but the only obvious related edit that I see of your range as an IP edit is a single 15.ai talk page edit (diff) and seemingly no other participation.
    It just makes me wonder who you are, how you found yourself here, why you decided to propose a sanction against another user who you've apparently not interacted with. – 2804:F1...C6:3070 (::/32) (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats weird, but I can assure you that I am not Ltbdl. Im the 180 guy. 2400:79E0:8041:59B8:1808:A7C3:DF68:6EE0 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Admins please ban HackerKnownAs! Its so obvious his edits are only to make trouble. Andthewinnerisme (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How on Earth do you think that the recommendations of accounts with 1 or 2 edits are going to lead to the block of an editor? You have no demonstratible experience editing this project. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Checkuser note: The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
    Since Rin6626 is already blocked, and all of the accounts have commented in this thread, all will be blocked indef per WP:BE, WP:GHBH, and WP:PROJSOCK. I'll create an SPI shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Ivanvector, can you also close this thread? I think we are done here. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I should - there have been concerns raised in good faith by and about editors who aren't part of this sock ring, and I'm not really familiar with what's been going on here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed TBAN of RocketKnightX

    [edit]

    User:RocketKnightX has continued to engage in an edit war at 15.ai despite having been warned for it in the past [172]. User:RocketKnightX during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [173][174]. Given the user's persistent edit warring at 15.ai [175][176][177] and their continued slow-edit warring [178] [179] and refusal to participate in dispute resolution or talk-page discussion in a meaningful manner[180][181][182] and noting that the user seems to have competency and maturity issues as demonstrated here [183][184] I propose at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX from editing at 15.ai, if not an indefinite one. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indefinite topic ban. I doubt that they wont cause issues on 15.ai if left unblocked. 2400:79E0:8070:6AE:1808:F1BB:1DB:E998 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I will stop. Happy now? RocketKnightX (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do not think it is up to me, if you say you're going to stop edit warring, that's good enough for me. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Croystron failure to communicate

    [edit]

    Hello. Croystron, who has over 4,000 edits, again refuses to respond to his latest talk page entry here. I have also pinged Croystron on his talk page on the entry, and now ping the editor, again, here: Croystron, plus putting the ANI-notice on his talk page. He was previously blocked for two weeks for the failure to communicate with no apparent effect as the editor, again, refuses to communicate. Perhaps a longer block is necessary to provide a significant downside for Croyston's repeated and persistent failure to communicate. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether or not he "refuses to respond" which is implying you know his motivation. They may not know that they have a talk page, we don't know. But the fact is that they have never made a single post to a Talk page, User talk page or noticeboard. So, I don't think we can expect them to respond here. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Liz, I would think Croystron would notice the prominent talk page alerts on the top of each page when editing, specially since besides a talk page entry showing up, Croystron was separately pinged. Also, I would think his previous two week block would cause Croystron to wonder why. Is it your view that failure to check a talk page after multiple alerts on the top every page when editing relieves an editor of a need to communicate? It seems to me the editor should be required to communicate and, specially since Croystron has over 4,000 edits, ignorance is not an excuse. Also, not previously discussed is the basis for communication, that Croystron is violating Wikipedia's editing policy and consensus policy by not providing edit summaries. Regardless, a significant block of a month should serve Croystron well, either alerting that communication cannot be ignored, or alerting to start attending to the talk page. Otherwise, how do you suggest a 4,000 edit editor be further alerted to respond to an editing policy violation? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a problem with the editing besides not providing edit summaries? Is there a way of forcing edit summary use in mainspace? I note they have edited draft talk once, but I think that might have been an automated edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the "editing policy violation" that Croystron is guilty of? I see that since 1 October Croystron (talk · contribs) has been pretty good about adding edit summaries. Not perfect but they are making an attempt which makes this comment a little out of place. Plus they haven't edited since 12 November so they may not have even seen any of the recent notices. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P-block from article space to try to get this editor's attention. This editor was blocked previously for MOS violations + refusal to explain. People have asked them to use edit summaries multiple times, and they've never bothered to respond. Not providing edit summaries wastes other editors' time, even when edits are clearly good. When someone won't respond to queries at their talk, I think a block is completely reasonable to try to get their attention. Valereee (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since 1 October they have made 143 edits. Of these 25 are listed as "No edit summary". And so because of that they are now partially blocked. I think that's a bit of an overreaction. They complied with the request to add summaries and still got partially blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems like an overreaction, especially considering what CambridgeBayWeather noted above about their edit summary usage. I am still unclear about what the actual policy violation is supposed to be here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd forgotten about Analysis of edit summary usage. They have made 337 edits since September and 203 (60%) with summaries a huge improvement over their first year, but it could be better. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would note that when they were previously blocked, the blocking admin said Please understand that, due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you're required to communicate when requested. You're welcome to resume editing after the block expires, but I do wish you'd be more cooperative with those editors with legitimate concerns if you'd continue to be here.. So saying edit sumarries are the only issue seems to ignore this. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But that's what this seems to be about. From Valereee "This editor was blocked previously for MOS violations + refusal to explain. People have asked them to use edit summaries multiple times, and they've never bothered to respond. Not providing edit summaries wastes other editors' time, even when edits are clearly good. When someone won't respond to queries at their talk".
      The last time communication was mentioned was User talk:Croystron#November 2024 Why won't you provide edit summaries? on 12 November (the last day that Croystron edited and being P-blocked three days later does not look good), and that wasn't so much about communicating but about edit summaries, something that they have been doing for a while. There is currently three comments about communicating on Croystron's talk page. Two from Quaerens-veritatem about edit summaries! One from Valereee when she P-blocked them.
      So really until now nobody has explained what is meant by communication on Wikipedia. Taking Wikipedia:Assume good faith at face value they may well think that the only problem was the edit summaries and that is an acceptable means of communication. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't know why this ping never came through, but it didn't. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block: The only issue identified here is that Croystron hasn't responded to a four-day-old post on their talk page about how they were not using edit summaries when, in fact, they were using edit summaries. Croystron also hasn't edited for four days at this point, so I'm not seeing why a P-block from mainspace is currently necessary. Blocks are preventative, and there's been no evidence presented here that Croystron has been making any kind of disruptive edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you think we should unblock, it's fine. For me a p-block from article space for someone who has basically never found talk space is helpful to getting them to realize there is such a thing, but I'm open to objection to that. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If there was something that needed urgent discussing with this editor, I would agree that a P-block would be appropriate here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Like I said, if you think we should unblock, it's fine. I think a p-block from article space when someone has been editing for over a year, has never used a talk page, and hasn't responded to multiple concerns expressed on their talk is appropriate. I tagged the block as anyone should feel free to unblock, with or without a properly formatted unblock request. I'm not trying to be a hardass, here. I'm just trying to get an editor's attention to the fact other editors are trying to communicate with them. Valereee (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that they started using edit summaries three months ago I'm sure that they know of the existence of talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good block: The block would be for failure to communicate, including not just for absence of talk page replies and non-response to ANI-notices, but also no response to multiple pings. The editor was blocked before for failure to respond. Block may now gain the editor's attention to start communicating. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Quaerens-veritatem, considering the editor hasn't edited for 4 days, I don't think they can be charged with "non-response to ANI-notices". You just posted this complaint today. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well Liz, the editor did not respond to an ANI-notice provided before the first block way back on 22 September 2024, or talk page entries, or several pings. The editor continued not to respond. Again, how do you suggest an over one year editor with 4,000 edits be otherwise alerted to respond to a failure to respond violation (which has continued from way before 22 September 2024)? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Quaerens-veritatem, I think you have done everything possible to inform this editor of existing problems, you have done your due diligence. But you can't control how other editors will or will not respond. There are editors who read each new message that gets posted to their User talk page and others who ignore their talk page beause they want to focus on article editing and not chatting with other editors. Then we have mobile editors who aren't even aware that they have a User talk page. We have to find ways to communicate with all types of editors including IP editors who don't have a stable User talk page and jump around to different IPs. You can only do your best which I think you have done. All I was asking in my original message is to Assume Good Faith and don't interpret a lack of immediate response as a sign of rejection or intentional avoidance. It could just be their temperament and editing patterns and have nothing to do with the message you posted. But, of course, if the editor came to participate here, we could learn more about their reasons. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that there's clearly a difference of opinion on how to handle this, I've taken a step back by unblocking and instead requesting the user communicate before editing again. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy

    [edit]
    WARNING
    Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs) is warned for forum-shopping. See this AE discussion. Drop the stick. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note: Intitally posted on AN, now moved to ANI at 16 November 17:18

    I'm currently dealing with a ridiculous situation in which an editor is supposedly propagating their own wishes of what Wikipedia policy should be, demanding that I abide by it, refusing to acknowledge actual Wikipedia policy guidelines, and what very clearly appears to be playing dumb to elicit frustration.

    This is the relevant t/p discussion and here I laid out a comprehensive case on why the figure at hand objectively as per Wikipedia policy does not constitute a low profile figure on the basis that they have actively sought media attention, giving interviews in which they themselves claimed to have been engaged in criminal activites. These interviews were detailed in length in The Globe and Mail and CTV and various other Indian news outlets, which I explained on that talk page. I also explained there was extensive media coverage surronding the figure in question dating back at least January 2023, fulfilling another requriement of WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

    Simonm223 posted on my talk page alleging that in order to write about accusations or charges laid against a person not yet convicted of a crime (aka where the person may have been arrested and charged but the case had not yet get gone to trial or a conviction in the trial was pending) , I first needed to establish that the person was notable independent of any reports of accusations of wrongdoing or alleged criminal activity. I repeatedly asked Simonm223 to provide me a policy page or quotes from a policy page which backed that up, but was met with radio silence each time. Instead of doing so, he just threw out various accusations of IDHT, despite that fact that I had provided 2 key elements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (extensive coverage from reliable sources) and WP:LOWPROFILE (figure in question seeking out media attention), whereas he did not provide any relevant quote.

    I also detailed examples where we do indeed name and detail accusations/charges against a person who had not been convicted of a crime; on my talk page, I brought up how we named Derek Chauvin and the charges laid against him in the George Floyd page a few months after the page was created, despite the fact that he was a private citizen, not yet convicted of the crime at that time, who did not attain any notability outside of the killing. In a high profile case like that with thousands of editors, naming Chauvin and the charges against him would have required overwhelming consenus, thereby demonstrably disproving Simonm's claims. A look at 2024 murders in the US shows numerous pages in which a person, who obviously did not attain notability independent of their crime, are named, described as suspects in a criminal act, and have their background exhaustively detailed. A poigant example would be-this case in which a conviction is pending. It cannot be that all of Wikipedia is wrong and violating BLPCRIME on a regular basis and Simonm is unilaterally correct.

    Both on my t/p and the article talk page, Simonm repeated these claims Absolutely not. As I mentioned at arbitration enforcement and at your user talk page it is a direct contravention of WP:BLPCRIME to put content up on Wikipedia that indicates a non-WP:PUBLICFIGURE is suspected of crimes for which they have not been convicted. Furthermore, as detailed at arbitration enforcement, one cannot be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE simply for having been accused of a crime. Based on these two statements we should leave out anything that would imply that any person associated with Hardeep Singh Nijjar is accused of crimes until such time as they stand trial or they become a politician, celebrity or other independently well-known person. despite the fact that the policy in WP:BLPCRIME is contingent on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE and nowhere does it say in WP:PUBLICFIGURE that someone cannot become a "public figure" solely through criminal activity which has not yet secured a conviction. Literally nowhere.

    After I demonstrably proved how the figure in question did in fact receive extensive media coverage for years and objectively cannot be considered a low profile figure, Simonm then claimed I gave you the policy in question. Your response is a text wall that boils down to "they do it on other pages" which is not a compelling point on Wikipedia. Lots of stuff happens on other pages that shouldn't.

    I don't believe Simonm is acting in good faith here, he seems to be knowingly ignoring the policy I'm citing, he's repeatedly spouting off nonexistent policy and not backing it up despite multiple requests and demanding that I just abide by his own personal preferences. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Globe report-"(Arsh Dalla) Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book."
    CTV report-Speaking to CTV News, Ritesh Lakhi, a well-connected independent journalist in India, says Dalla is “a very prominent player, as far as organized crime in the north state of Punjab.” ... Lakhi says that during previous conversations with Dalla, he even admitted his role in some of the murders, telling CTV News that Dalla “would simply call me up. I did a few interviews with him, and he would tell me why he killed this person. We've been watching his activities for the last three and a half years.” Lakhi goes on to add that in some cases in India, “there are certain gangsters who’ve been designated as terrorists, and Arsh Dalla happens to be one of them.” Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This undeniably proves that Dalla actively sought out media attention, thus making him a high profile person. Simonm ignored that on the t/p and instead claimed I only invoked OSE, which is egregiously insulting and disruptive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things:
    1. this is the wrong noticeboard for what you are trying to do.
    2. If you take a content dispute to the noticeboard that takes these sorts of complaints when there's already literally two arbitration enforcement cases about the same issue and against a person who has literally just said "we don't accuse plumbers from surrey of being gangsters on Wikipedia pages about alleged known associates," (like I literally haven't even done any edits to the page, you just don't like what I said about Wikipedia policy at article talk) you're going to catch a boomerang for these antics. Could an admin please close this thread?
    Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, this is well beyond a content dispute- you're spouting off non existent Wikipedia policy and refusing to back them up despite multiple requests, consistently and knowingly ignoring me providing actual Wikipedia policy elements and backing them up, making hurtful accusations against me claiming a paragraph in which I highlighted numerous sources and policies was merely "other stuff exists" which is an egregious violation of decency and clearly intended to frustrate me, and gaslighting me by claiming that I'm the one who's ill-informed (you first lobbed the IDHT insult against me-[185]).
    This is clearly not a content dispute, but a competence is required and IDHT problem on your part.
    The fact that you cannot even address any of the claims I made above regarding WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:LOWPROFILE, either here on the article's t/p or on my t/p is telling. I engaged with you respectfully in the very beginning and was willing to have a conversation based on policy, but all you've done is make petty insults against me, insult my intelligence, demanded that I abide by your personal interpretation and preferences of Wiki policy, lied about what a policy section states, and ridiculed my arguments and brazenly straw manned them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant background: I filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against Southasianhistorian8 on November 14 due to conduct issues in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topic area (specifically Sikh topics). Simonm223 provided a statement as an uninvolved editor to that AE request,[186] then attempted to engage SAH on their user talk page.[187] This interaction ended with Simonm223 adding to his AE statement, saying "Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset."[188]
    SAH appears in that interaction to try to WP:BADGER Simonm223 into agreement with walls of text, both on their user talk page and at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar, despite Simonm223 only wanting to keep the discussion at the user talk.[189]
    This filing appears to be lashing out at Simonm223 for not agreeing with them. This is in-line with SAH filing a retaliatory AE request against me 7-hours after the one against them.[190]
    Both the retaliatory AE request and this AN filing demonstrate both a clear non-understanding of WP:IDHT and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing in this topic area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, GhostofDanGurney has a very long history of making hasty, ill researched claims about me, in a previous A/E, he falsely accused me of plagiarizing his work, ScottishFinnishRadish concluded that Ghost made inflammatory edit summaries against me and others and engaged in a tendentious interpretation of a primary source, he also falsely claimed I edit warred citing a grand total of one revert, and has now been told by 2 admins that his reports at A/E are based on content disputes. He's literally throwing anything and everything on the wall, hoping something sticks. I urge admins to look at Ghost's egregious conduct for themselves.
    Now he's claiming that I badgered Simonm23 on their user talk page, which again is a straight up lie, the only post I made on Simonm's t/p is the notification for this AN post. Simonm also first stated that he wanted to relegate the discussion to my t/p then 9 minutes later posted on the article's t/p despite that fact that I never pinged or initiated a discussion with him there. So again, a brazen lie from Ghost.
    This is also clear tag-teaming from 2 editors who clearly are on each other's side.
    Nonetheless, there are severe issues about Simonm's conduct, and I urge admins not to fall for tricks that are intended to digress and take attention away from that. These conduct issues laid out here specifically pertaining to Simonm's conduct on my t/p and article t/p deserve to be addressed. 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is straight up bullying now-[191] and the lack of self-awareness and brazen tag teaming is bewildering. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I was given an ultimatum for expired awareness notifications

    [edit]

    This is about developments at User talk:Hotpine. Hotpine has given me an ultimatum for retracting awareness notifications which have expired for almost two years.

    [192], [193], and [194]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hotpine: you edited in area of Wikipedia that are under discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. tgeorgescu posted a standard contentious topic alert, which does not imply that your edits were improper. It appears that you take issue with the fact that the standard alert makes reference to the arbitration case that imposed those sanctions. I'm not sure why you take issue with that, but there's nothing improper about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now that I got the point that such notifications do not expire, I have to say why I told them they're editing under WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions: sex addiction therapy and porn addiction therapy have become a way of performing conversion therapy without calling it so. This is especially relevant since conversion therapy has been banned in several states. I don't know any WP:MEDRS to that extent, but it is a point which reputable experts made in mainstream media. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above made me curious about WP:MEDRS to that extent and I found this: Neves, Silva (2023). "Chapter 11. MSM and compulsive sexual behaviours. "Sex addiction" and conversion practices". In Neves, Silva; Davies, Dominic (eds.). Erotically Queer: A Pink Therapy Guide for Practitioners. Taylor & Francis. p. unpaginated. doi:10.4324/9781003260608-12. ISBN 978-1-000-86221-8. Retrieved 17 November 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I don't understand is that these notices were posted on their user talk page almost 3 years ago and the editor has edited since 2021. Why are they complaining about them now? I hope they will find their way here and offer an explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now in the article Sexual addiction the link between sexual addiction therapy and conversion therapy is abundantly sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Those templates say "discretionary sanctions" not CTOPs. So, I don't know if they're expired. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how we can get much clearer than, "this message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", but many editors seem to miss that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to bring back the marquee tag. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence isn't true and everyone knows it, that's why. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ardyjofry

    [edit]
    User:Ardyjofry indefinitely blocked (Bbb23). Abused talk page while blocked, thus talk page access revoked as well (me). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ardyjofry, who was recently blocked for a week for vandalism, has in recent days been repeatedly posting the same unsuitable article to mainspace. I originally draftified the article as it was blank, which they rejected by returning it to mainspace but did not actually improve it, merely adding two sentences copied from another article. I nominated for CSD, User:Pppery changed it to a redirect, all fine until they then deleted the redirect and replaced it with the same bad content, necessitating a full lock be put on the redirect. They then proceeded to vandalise my userpage, which was honestly not that big a deal so I simply left a warning and carried on, but today they posted a hoax article and then left a very low-effort personal attack on their talk page in response to me.

    I think at this point, whilst not a clear-cut vandal for AIV, they are very clearly not getting it and it's probably worth another block.

    CoconutOctopus talk 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:MxLoko apparently WP:NOTHERE and engaging in personal attacks

    [edit]
    SOCK DRAWER CLOSED
    Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:MxLoko is an account created on October 20 that, as of this writing, has made 35 edits. Of those, 25 are on two talk pages involving soccer-related articles and another five are either to the user’s own user page and talk page. (The other five edits are substantive edits to soccer-related articles.) The user's talk page contributions consist primarily of constantly repeating the same talking points to complain when other users are not agreeing with proposed edits. Let me add that I have no idea what this person is talking about regarding "exposing" a group of three or four users and their alleged "methods" (whatever those are), although it sounds vaguely like a threat to me.

    diff 1

    diff 2 basically says the same thing

    diff 3 repeats it again

    diff 4 then says the same thing again

    I firmly believe MxLoko is displaying WP:NOTHERE behavior by refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and by repeating the same talking point about "exposing methods" over and over again.

    MxLoko has also engaged in personal attacks on me in edit summaries and on the user's user page and talk page, as follows:

    Original version of the user page—take note of what it says at the end and take note of the edit summary. WP:ES very clearly states, quote, "As with any other Wikipedia space, do not express opinions of other users in edit summaries." MxLoko very clearly violated that. The system, of course, notified me about it and I demanded that the personal attack be removed from the user page. Another user took care of that. In response, MxLoko very disingenuously claimed there was no personal attack—obviously a ludicrous claim—and essentially expressed an intent to continue the behavior. The user then revised the user page to retain the attack without mentioning me by name, although the new personal attack is wrong because I wasn’t born in 1995 (I’m not going to divulge my exact age except to say I’m well over 40 years old).

    I have no problem with a user disagreeing with me. That happens all the time. But under no circumstances am I willing to tolerate a user engaging in personal attacks against me on the person's own user page. The user's claim that there was no personal attack is irrelevant. WP:NPA very clearly says, quote, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (Emphasis in original.) MxLoko's claim to have believed that I was a "fan" does not pass what is sometimes called the "straight-face" or "laugh" test—no reasonable person could make that claim while keeping a straight face. 1995hoo (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I saw the block show up and I tried to delete this report so as not to waste anyone’s time, but you beat me to it. Have a nice weekend. 1995hoo (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Self-talk page vandalism?

    [edit]

    I haven't encountered an instance of anyone vandalizing their own talk page before (without having been blocked with TPA), but 216.138.20.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has achieved that dubious honor. I frankly do not know if this kind of activity is prohibited, which is why I haven't issued any warnings as yet. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for disruptive editing and TPA revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: Thank you. In the future, can this kind of thing just be reported to AIV instead? JJPMaster (she/they) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this fits within the definition of vandalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Zlillyann might be this IP's registered account so keep an eye on them. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the same; their userpage was already on my watchlist. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated WP:PA Violations by IP 47.69.66.57 (and prior IP addresses)

    [edit]

    The IP (and previous IP addresses operated by the same individual) has made repeated personal attacks targetting me.

    They have alleged that I am not... mentally sound: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" [1]

    They claimed that a B-Class article I edit often, SpaceX Super Heavy, is my "favorite playground" [2][3]

    Multiple claims of attempting to mislead others: "And you still either don't understand or try to mislead" [4]

    "Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts" [5]

    "Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals" [6]

    "neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others" [7]

    They accuse everyone they disagree with of WP:OR, despite the disputed content often being well sourced. And anyone who confronts them is a WP:PA violator: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

    IMO, it is clear that they are not here to improve Wikipedia, and edits only to harrass more experienced editors.

    I reported their behaviour before, but no action was taken.[15] Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A link to the archive of the previous report (with the responses): link. – 2804:F1...A2:6879 (::/32) (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopping in here as I've also seen this person repeatedly hounding Redacted II in several discussions. It's clear this user is not interested in constructive editing. Ergzay (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    User:TomW1212 making legal threats after being warned on their talk page - see diff. CoconutOctopus talk 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now blocked for vandalism indefinitely so probably safe to close this! CoconutOctopus talk 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revoked this person's talk page access. It is crystal clear that their intent is malicious. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SheriffIsInTown POV pushing editing pattern

    [edit]

    SheriffIsInTown has been consistently POV pushing against Imran Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), figures in Pakistan’s political crisis. I reported them on this noticeboard recently, and I hoped that the issue would be resolved after my report, but I am reporting them again as their WP:CPUSH behavior has made it difficult to discuss and work with them on contentious topics since the report.

    POV pushing on Imran Khan BLP
    On the Imran Khan BLP, Sheriff has added almost exclusively negative criticism about Khan, including citing an opinion piece instead of reliable inline citations and following a one-sided narrative. In this discussion, they argued that one sexual harassment allegation should have an independent section, followed by accusing both me and the user who added the section (WikiEnthusiast1001) of POV pushing in favor of PTI because we advocated for a merge into another section to fit the article's structure.

    Following a somewhat resolution to the dispute, they added a large section about Khan's comments on rape and allegations of misogyny/victim-blaming but was entirely one-sided, failing to mention other viewpoints or any context, essentially only covering the negatives which forced me and another user to step in and add context [195] [196]. Even worse, Sheriff already knows that Khan's comments on rape were contested as out of context, as they edited on a page talking about the allegations but did not add the other viewpoint.

    Previously, they put false information on Imran Khan’s BLP article that was not supported by any of the 3 citations they gave and citation bombed to make it seem like a proper piece of information. I asked them twice on why they did this in the talk page, but they only responded when Saqib intervened in this discussion.

    Even more concerning, they cited an opinion piece for 2 paragraphs of information on Imran Khan’s page without even mentioning it was an opinion piece. They also used that one opinion piece as a citation for two paragraphs about contentious information on an already contentious protected BLP, without inline citations or even a mention of the opinion piece or its authors, The Guardian and Catherine Bennet, which was discussed here. In response to the lengthy negative opinion piece Sheriff added, I decided to balance it with a short paragraph summarizing three positive opinion pieces [197]. However, instead of allowing for balance, Sheriff selectively extracted negative points from these generally positive pieces and showed further compulsion to add only negative content. [198] Khan is a controversial figure in Pakistani politics and his BLP is a high-priority and a GA nomination which is why these editing patterns are even more concerning.

    Aggressive Behavior
    As I mentioned on my previous report, discussions with them often result in WP:IDHT by them. They have threatened to “take it to the next level” and use language like “before you open your mouth” with me. They have accused me of bad faith and portraying Imran Khan as suffering because I used the word 'Campaigning'.

    Edit Warring on Election Pages and 3RR
    A major example of this behavior is that they reverted three times [199] [200] [201] on 2024 Pakistani general election, out of which 2 reverts were done within 24 hours, when already being told not to by multiple editors in this discussion. I explained that as per WP:BRD I could revert their edit reducing the PTI's seats from 93 to 39 then initiate a discussion, but I decided to initiate a civil discussion first to avoid an edit war with Sheriff, though they still continued edit warring, continuing to rapidly reduce the PTI's seats despite no consensus.

    WP:FORUM political comments
    Additionally, there are instances where Sheriff's comments on talk pages have deviated from content discussion and veered into personal opinions, which is against WP:NOTFORUM. As they stated that There was a legal issue about this because PTI failed to conduct intra-party elections properly. When you don’t follow the law, there are consequences. [202], which the "consequences" remark is confusing as it inserts their political opinion regarding PTI into a talk page discussion. In this comment Claiming it was a false flag operation is a serious accusation. Simply stating that it wasn’t isn’t sufficient; it requires an explanation of why it wasn’t a false flag. [203], Sheriff challenges PTI's claim of a "false flag operation," which seems to stray into political bias, as it focuses on discrediting a political claim rather than representing the information in a neutral, factual manner.

    Other Users Confirming This Behavior
    Saqib - Saqib has raised concerns multiple times over SheriffIsInTown's POV pushing behavior patterns against PTI and Imran Khan on several pages including on Sheriff's talk page, primarily Sheriff removing PTI on election pages as well as in this discussion and here.

    WikiEnthusiast1001 - WikiEnthusiast1001 has accused Sheriff of disruptive editing on the Imran Khan page and other pages recently. They also balanced out Sheriff's one-sided edits on Imran Khan and pointed out: This section is oddly worded and would be clearer if titled 'Controversies.' It presents a one-sided view without mentioning Imran's later clarifications. As Titan and I have noted, your strong involvement with this page suggests a potential bias. It might be best for you to take a break from editing and come back with fresh perspective. Take some time to unwind—there's more to life than just editing Wikipedia In their edit diff.

    Saad Ali Khan Pakistan - Saad Ali Khan Pakistan has has accused SheriffIsInTown of bullying and constantly reverting his edits on election pages here and here. He recently urged admins to take action against Sheriff for said disruptive behavior. Titan2456 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the accusations mentioned here were addressed in a previous ANI, where the majority of uninvolved editors dismissed their report. After Drmies closed the discussion, they approached Drmies to reopen the discussion, but their request was denied, and they were instructed to present stronger evidence, which they have been attempting to gather since then. As I mentioned, most of these accusations were already discussed and dismissed in the previous ANI. If an admin highlights anything new, I will gladly address it. Most issues arise from OP adding promotional or biased content, which compels me to step in and balance the narrative. Their support for PTI and its leaders is clear from the user box displayed on their user page, as seen in this revision:
    This user supports the
    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
    They are not a neutral editor and are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia but are instead driven by a political agenda. So far, I have only managed to address a fraction of their edits. In nearly every article related to a PTI figure that they have edited, they predominantly added promotional content, much of which still requires balancing—a task I intend to continue as time permits. I anticipate that they will return here repeatedly, as the promotional content they add can only be counterbalanced with material they may not favour, given their support for PTI and its leaders. They are upset with me because I am the only one standing in their way. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Titan2456, please post an ANI notification on the User talk page of every editor you mention in your opening comments, not just Sheriff. They should know that their comments might be discussed. No comment yet on the substance of your remarks. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, they express a clear intention to specifically expand the criticism and allegations section against Ishaq Dar, a political opponent of PTI—the party they have openly declared their support for. Can we trust an editor who has openly aligned themselves with a political party and then explicitly states their intent to add criticism and allegations to articles about leaders of the opposing party? Shouldn’t their edits be reviewed for neutrality? Furthermore, they repeatedly file ANI reports against me for merely attempting to balance their edits, which ultimately wastes everyone’s time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So much to unpack, so maybe I'll go section by section. The POV pushing appears to be neutrally balanced. The wording could be better, but that's why there's a talk page. Aggressive behavior? I mean yeah it's aggressive but it feels more like a slap on the wrist type of warning that could be given, nothing more. The 3RR was discussed last time. Two NOTFORUM remarks doesn't feel like enough and they aren't exactly forum-like comments anyways. So, what actually do you want accomplished? Do you need someone to wag their finger at Sheriff and tell them to calm down? From what I can tell aggression is not equal to disruption, but making constant ANI reports about one user is. Conyo14 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute at Redbox article

    [edit]

    An IP hopper (range: 92.40.212.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) has been attempting to add a user-generated wiki to the Redbox article by doing the following:

    Would like a path forward here.

    wizzito | say hello! 02:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That personal attack should be at minimum a block. non-admin comment Conyo14 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NigelPorter and User:Bjcook; potential COI and/or SOCK

    [edit]

    I recently requested a review of the article Brendon Cook as I believe that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, reasons for which can be found here. This article already has a COI cloud under it, as User:Bjcook (a direct reference to the subject's name) created the article and continues to edit Wikipedia regularly.

    User:NigelPorter then stated his opinion, however did not reference any Wikipedia policies or even clearly state whether they supported or opposed the AfD. Having replied to them with valid reasons as to why their suggestions did not meet Wikipedia's criteria, they then proceeded to claim that I had some sort of "personal agenda" against the subject of the article due to my user name - despite their user page containing userboxes indicating similar interests. This user then immediately copied the contents of the article into their sandbox, indicating that they will immediately resubmit the article if it is deleted.

    Their actions towards the proposed deletion of the article suggest a potential COI or an attitude of article ownership, or even a potential sock puppet of User:Bjcook, that is in disregard to Wikipedia policy. MSportWiki (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT: Both editors have contributed to Queensland netball-related articles in the last few months (Bjcook and NigelPorter) whilst Brendon Cook sits on a board for Indigenous netball in Queensland (sources 1 2) – clear evidence of COI and sockpuppetry. @Acalamari, Discospinster, Finlay McWalter, Graeme Bartlett, Joe Roe, Liz, Mjroots, Pppery, Tassedethe, and Voorts: pinging some randomly active editors to kickstart the procedure. MSportWiki (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Jolly J" Fennimore making accusations of criminal activity

    [edit]

    "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making various claims of criminal activity on Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project (diff). These accusations apparently originate with him (not from the press or government) and certainly fall afoul of WP:BLP. He appears to be editing primarily to publicize these allegations (see edit summary here of I added several serious crimes that have occurred during the restoration of the Cut-Off. I have many more still to add. I have become an investigative journalist and have a newspaper with stories related to this (and exposing [person]) coming out early 2025. While his edits cite some sources, they don't support 90% of the screed, including all of the criminal allegations. His talk page comments here and here indicate a total lack of why his editing is inappropriate. I unfortunately did not leave an edit warring notice until after my second revert and his third of the day, but given these allegations, I think admin action may be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you claim I didn't cite my sources? "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim falsely that 90% of what I wrote is not supported. You pulled this percentage out of thin air. Nonetheless, if you do not believe that 90% is supported- Why did you remove 100%? Is being an investigative journalist and being on Wikipedia non-compatible? I could cite many more sources and add much more, but then the page would be a mile long. If you need me to clarify or give more substantiation- let me know where you need more clarification and more citations and they will be added. All I know is my work on Wikipedia was deleted and you did so claiming that I didn't cite sources. Like I said, if you can point out what I didn't cite, I will add citations and if they aren't readily available, I will remove those sections for a day, before I can find them in my notes. I am a fairly easy-going person, there is no reason to bother administrators, they do enough work already. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @"Jolly J" Fennimore: Most of what you added is improper synthesis: you improperly drew your own conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the sources you cited. Please also read WP:RGW: we are not a place to post new investigative journalism, only a place where things that have already been reported by a independent reliable source can be given their due weight, not more not less. If your goal here is to make new reports of misconduct, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for it. Remember, the people you are mentioning are living, so we must be very careful about what we say about them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also edit-warring going on here. I've warned the editor (who has now been warned twice) but they might cross the 3RR line. Liz Read! Talk! 08:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help, I am still fairly new here and still don't know why anybody is talking about "War"? I didn't start any war. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @"Jolly J" Fennimore: Edit warring is not a war per se but has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Please refer to that link. Essentially, you were repeatedly reinserting content when others have shown their opposition by taking it back out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thekz Cos

    [edit]

    This user keeps moving pages from the sandbox to the Wikipedia namespace. They have been warned twice on the talk page but continue to do so. Annh07 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In User talk:Thekz Cos § October 2024 they responded to the warning with noted. Since then, they've moved six more drafts to the Wikipedia namespace:
    jlwoodwa (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    What's going on? Thekz Cos (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing up the matter regarding the movement of drafts to the Wikipedia namespace. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this process and its compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and broader legal considerations.
    The migration of drafts to the Wikipedia namespace is a standard practice and fully aligns with Wikipedia’s purpose of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. The following points address your concerns and provide context:
    1. Legal and Community Compliance Wikipedia operates under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) and GFDL licenses. These licenses explicitly allow the sharing, modifying, and publishing of content, provided proper attribution is maintained. Moving drafts to the main namespace does not violate these licenses as it remains within the scope of Wikipedia's content-sharing policies.
    2. Editorial Review and Process The drafts moved to the Wikipedia namespace are subject to Wikipedia’s robust editorial processes, including community oversight and adherence to notability and sourcing guidelines. This ensures the integrity and quality of the articles, maintaining the platform’s credibility and mission.
    3. Transparency and Traceability The edits and actions, including draft movements, are transparently logged in the platform's history. This allows the community to review and discuss any concerns openly. The action of moving drafts reflects consensus-driven contributions rather than unilateral decisions.
    4. Encouraging Collaboration Moving a draft to the main namespace often signifies its readiness for broader community input. This step is critical to engaging a diverse editor base for improving, expanding, and refining the content collaboratively.
    If you have specific concerns about a particular draft or process, I’m more than willing to discuss further and address any issues. I am confident that all actions taken align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and legal framework. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern is the particular process: you're moving pages to the Wikipedia namespace, not to the main namespace. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out the concern regarding the process of moving drafts to the Wikipedia namespace instead of the main namespace. I understand the importance of adhering to proper workflows and ensuring that all actions align with community norms.
    The movement of pages to the Wikipedia namespace is typically used for internal pages or supplementary content that supports the encyclopedia's infrastructure, such as policies, guidelines, and administrative tools. If my actions of moving drafts to this namespace are perceived as inappropriate or inconsistent with its intended purpose, I sincerely apologize for the confusion caused.
    That said, I would like to provide clarification:
    1. Intent of the Moves The decision to move drafts to the Wikipedia namespace was made to allow further collaboration, refinement, or discussion among editors before publishing in the main namespace. It is not my intention to misuse the Wikipedia namespace or disrupt its purpose.
    2. Corrective Steps Moving forward, I will ensure that drafts, once ready, are moved directly to the main namespace unless there is a specific, community-approved reason to do otherwise. If any of the drafts currently in the Wikipedia namespace need reassignment, I am open to addressing them promptly.
    3. Community Consultation I am happy to discuss this process with the appropriate editors or administrators to ensure alignment with community guidelines. Constructive feedback will help refine my understanding and adherence to the expected standards.
    If there is a specific protocol or workflow I should follow for such cases, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. My goal remains to contribute positively and in accordance with Wikipedia’s best practices.
    Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to resolving this matter collaboratively. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Jlwoodwa. Also there are currently 18 pages in the Wikipedia namespace: [204]. Annh07 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    exclamation mark  User partially blocked from moving pages for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigerian name project

    [edit]

    There seems to be some project to add all Nigerian names to Wikipedia, based on unreliable sources (maybe centered around the wiki yorubaname.com) and without much care about our standards. I haven't been able to find any central page or responsible person though, and the number of editors and pages is quite overwhelming. While this had lead to a fair number of useful disambiguation pages, it has also produced many problematic pages, many of which I turned into redirects or have nominated for deletion. The latest example I reverted was this, turning the page about the surname Wale into a page about the first name, "a distinctive and culturally rich choice for a baby boy"...

    Any help in dealing with this never-ending influx is welcome. Editors I encountered (probably a non-exhaustive list) include User:GladysJombo, User:Emmanuella643, User:Bembety, User:Halima Waziri, User:Airypedia, User:Aderiqueza, User:Tunde Akangbe, User:Abike25, ... Fram (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1258171637"