Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:40, 18 May 2022

• Re point 2: You are technically right, but in practice lack of Page Mover right precludes you from closing most RMs. A good deal of redirects are nowadays salted for one reason or another (
  No such user (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Since there are two open threads at WPO that highlight this matter right now, meTa it's better that I provide an updated summary. I recognize that many participants in this thread feel the revocation was a mistake. But Swarm, a PERM regular with 700 actions to my 30, had said above that though originally he was nothing short of shocked and outraged that an admin would revoke a perm over a disputed close, once he looked beyond its surface, he 100% agree[d] with it. He even said that he genuinely [didn't] see how there was any alternative. As well, above, IP editor 163.1.15.238 has provided other troubling examples.

In my view, a bad close and subsequent move of a contested EE/APL page while it's being challenged at

WP:PERM

is also an option, if that doesn't happen. The venue doesn't matter. All it would take is for one admin to feel confident Vpab15 should have the PM right back (presumably, with Vpab15 providing some substance, but maybe not).

I'm certainly not gonna hold any ill will toward any admin who might re-grant it (truly), but I'm just not comfortable reversing myself right now, even with all the pressure. Referring to 163.1.15.238's evidence again, I'm concerned for bad closes/moves going unchallenged due to inertia. That said, multiple people above said that I should slow down, so upon reflation (no pressure!), I'm trying to take that on-board. El_C 20:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Countless times on this very page, users are told that when a number of experienced editors are telling them that they are making a mistake then they should correct that mistake, regardless of what they may "know" is right. I don't think anyone has told you to "slow down", I think you've been, quite directly, asked to correct your mistake. Primergrey (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll restore the page mover rights. One mistake in closing a discussion is not enough to unilaterally revoke per
  WP:PMRR
  , and there's enough agreement above that this wasn't a good revocation.

I'll also go out on a limb and say that I don't think the close by Vpab15 is actually bad. It's a very poorly argued discussion overall, but a couple of the opposition !votes don't make any sense and most of the "oppose" !votes seem to be about whether the article is about actions against Poland too, which is kind of irrelevant to the Russian vs Soviet question that the requested move is mostly about. Honestly, I could see myself very well closing that discussion in a similar way (but maybe better explained), since the people who actually argued Russian vs Soviet mostly agreed on Soviet. But the discussion in unclear enough that NC is also valid.

I definitely don't think El C should've unilaterally overturned the discussion, either. There's no policy that NACs can be unilaterally overturned in general. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly add that the close definitely should've been better explained, but the outcome itself isn't bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO It’s been established that the user doesn’t satisfy the granting guidelines. None of my arguments that the right should not be reinstated have been refuted, and yet you’re arbitrarily regranting extremely powerful tools to a user who has demonstrated problematic conduct in the area of specialization. Over what, a procedural technicality that the criteria for revocation were not satisfied verbatim? Galobtter, I feel you betray the best interests of the community here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in Wikipedia do we we do anything without giving a user a warning or a chance to improve their behavior. Instantly revoking a user right for a good faith, not unreasonable (as I explained) close is not how Wikipedia should work. That's what I mean by

WP:PMRR

not being met - I don't care that much about the technicalities but thought I'd refer to the relevant guideline, since it does bolster the case for re-granting.

As far as I can tell, your main argument is about violating

WP:RMs

I made many close-call NACs and no one had any problem as I long as I explained myself properly, so I don't see how we can fault Vpab15 for making the NAC close. Your other argument is about the close being bad, which as I explained above, I don't quite agree with even if I do think it wasn't the best explained.

I think you also overstate the powers of page mover, and Vpab15 has not actually abused any of the page mover technical powers. So what harm do you think Vpab15 would do with the page mover rights now that they have them? Make controversial closes? As many people have pointed out, that's something they can do regardless of having the right. They were never told to stop making controversial closes, which would be the first step if that's the issue.

I also don't see how you can say I betray the best interests of the community if most of the community that has expressed an opinion above think the revocation was not good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such user (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nonsense. I’ve done nothing but provide the most objective analysis I could, based on written guidelines and longstanding norms. My arguments were multiple, thorough, and not refuted, my concerns have not been addressed at all, nor any sort of convincing rationale established for re-granting the user right. That’s fine, we all disagree with each other all the time. Now I am simply documenting my strong dissent for the record, in case there are any further issues and we need to revisit this in the future, and I hope it won’t be necessary. Doesn’t change the facts, and the fact is that there are numerous problems here which would be disqualifying for PM for any other user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "fact" to describe a minority opinion doesn't make the opinion any more persuasive. Levivich 13:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually knows me would know that, without a doubt, I would never use the word “fact” to describe even the strongest opinion. I use the term “fact” to describe objective facts, nothing more. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When's the last time someone had page mover yanked because of a bad RM close? Levivich 06:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of retaliation after giving advice that edit warring can result in a block. See this edit. Inappropriate comments such as "tough pill to swallow" and "fuming at this decision." I'm merely trying to keep the information accurate. I have no personal attachment to the company or the city of Sandusky. Also, please review user's talk page. This user has a long history of disruptive editing and multiple warnings. The edits and reversals are often spread apart by several days or weeks, but they are still disruptive.—JlACEer (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them about their comment. I see enough decent looking edits in their contributions, that I don't know if a block is appropriate yet, but if they continue inappropriate behavior it can certainly can be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was inappropriate but the content dispute itself is legitimate, and their comment is more understandable given the context. Looking up sources it looks like the company has been shifting their corporate operations away from their original HQ in Sandusky to Charlotte, and from what I can tell it is at the point where the CEO, COO, and other top executive staff are largely based out of the Charlotte location now making it a de facto corporate headquarters, much to the concern of the Sandusky camp. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Zimmerman, the President and CEO, was in Charlotte prior to becoming CEO in 2018, so that is nothing new. The CFO is still in Sandusky and all the partnership shareholder reports, SEC filings, and IRS tax documents still list Sandusky as the corporate headquarters. Until those things change, the wiki page should not be changed.—JlACEer (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the argument you are making, that's a content matter, and should be discussed at the article talk page. Yes, the comment that StatsFreak made is inappropriate, but this is not the place to litigate a content dispute; we only deal with behavioral matters here. You may be right (or not, I don't take any stance on that), but even so, that doesn't mean that other people don't have reasonable perspectives; if there is a dispute that cannot be worked out on the article talk page, invite extra commentary from uninvolved editors using

edit warring, but let's keep content discussions in the right spot. --Jayron32 17:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So the de facto headquarters is only the headquarters because the CEO was already there before he became the CEO and made his existing location his new headquarters? But on the official paperwork, nothing’s changed? A fascinating content dispute, to be sure. Not something we’re going to block over. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned with the comment "this will not end well for you" along with the long history of disruptive editing and block warnings. Please look over his talk page. Warnings are useless if they are not carried out. I see this far too often where admins don't want to issue a block because the disruptions are not occurring "right now." I realize blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but at some point, someone needs to show these users that disruptive editing and threatening other users is not acceptable. He has reverted the content four times and ignored the discussion on his talk page. What happened to the three-revert rule?—JlACEer (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, are you reporting this user per your original post? Or for a 3RR violation? Or for a pattern of behavioral misconduct? Your complaint has been actioned, and unless you have very convincing diffs handy, we don’t look kindly on this kind of goalpost-shifting. An admin has already told you that they have your back and that they will block if necessary. Don’t push it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion to your talk page.—JlACEer (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the full name of UFC fighter

When making this deletion, I explained my rationale on the talk page, Talk:Tony Ferguson.

User:Cassiopeia reverted the edit, ignored the talk page discussion I started, and decided to call me a vandal on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sorry_sir,_that%27s_classified_information&diff=1087400445&oldid=1073662994

I am bringing this to ANI attention because I take BLP extremely seriously with a lot more scrutiny than a typical Wikipedia article, which is precisely what WP prescribes. I am in general concerned that

• The overwhelming majority of news sources don't include the full legal name of their subjects, but those legal names are nonetheless valid inclusions in articles about them -- and indeed, are routine -- even in many cases where the subjects themselves would devoutly love to suppress the information. This particular case scarcely involves someone seeking to avoid publicity, or unwarranted digging. This is someone actively participating in professional sports, and the source in question is a publicly available government document issued in support of that endeavor. (It's a freaking scoresheet, for pity's sake.)

  Furthermore,

  WP:DOX absolutely, positively does not apply here: it's intended to protect the anonymity of Wikipedia editors, not of BLP subjects, and the only guidance there dealing with non-editors is "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality." Finally, I'm missing the diff where you talk this over with Cassiopeia before dashing straight to ANI to complain; might you provide it, please? Ravenswing 02:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Perhaps you were thinking of
  WP:DOX? 🙂 — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Just to note, 'twas me who reverted the removal and restored his name. Cass only restored the current ranking that you reverted, which could be what prompted the warning template being issued. That aside, I completely agree with Ravenswing. Media sources probably don't publish his full name because, why would they? Not all that relevant, but the guy has "Anthony Armand" tattood on his arm. I think it's safe to presume he's not trying to hide his full name. – ².O.^Boxing 02:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a more appropriate source for the name. – ².O.^Boxing 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come to that, a simple GNews search for "Anthony Armand Ferguson Padilla" turns up articles on CNN and in the Kenyan and Indonesian press; elapsed time, less than it took me to type this response. Ravenswing 05:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, that's classified information See below

1. The warning was for the edit you removed the source ranking info see here here-1. I am one of the counter vandalism trainers in Wikipedia and it is my work to warns editors who make disruptive, vandalism, promotion, copyvio, NPOV, adding unsourced, spam and etc edits.
2. DOX has nothing to do with BLP. Pls understand the guidelines.
3. The full name is support by independent, reliable sourced content.
4. I am not the one who reverted or restored the full name info but other editor - see here-2. Pls check carefully next time before state the wrong fact. So I have no idea why the ANI is for.
5. Pls note if any disagreement, then go to the article talk page and "invite the involved" editor and discuss is "extensively and lengthy and you can also invite other experienced editors to comment who know a lot about the subject". If after all the above, and still distributive then an ANI can be raised for ANI is the last resort and not without discussion then go to ANI. You have not event ping me and any discussion of the issue and straight went to ANI and this is not how thing work. Thus, pls understand the the procedures. In Wikipedia, editors should discuss the issues in hand on the article talk page and not run to ANI for every issue. I have about 200K edits and have
6. Finally I am an experienced MMA editor in Wikipedia, and I am here to help. Do raise any questions or seek any assistance if you may. Cassiopeia talk 09:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought
  WP:DOX applied to other editors? As far as I'm aware Ferguson does not edit wikipedia (if you've seen his twitter you can probably figure out why.) ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As a BLPN regular, I have a fairly different perspective from most others here. While
  WP:BEFORE but if you regularly edit BLPs you come across a lot of these terribly sourced names all the time, and sadly a lot of experienced seems to think it's acceptable when it isn't. Knowing jack shit about MMA, I would have no idea whether this is one of those large number of cases where the name isn't available in reliable secondary sources and so should not be included or it is it's just that editors seem to think it's acceptable to source it to crappy "official" sources and myself would likely have just removed it if an editor brought it to BLPN and fought to keep it out until an editor acceptably sourced it. It's good that this eventually happened but it should not have taken an ANI thread for that to happen. If you're fighting to keep a living person's personal information an an article you should be the one finding the sources, not the editor you are reverting. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I should clarify it's possible in some cases evidence that the subject is trying to conceal their name or not trying to conceal their name may be relevant. But this is only likely in certain cases, such as when there are very few sources covering. It doesn't matter when there are no reliable secondary sources, nor if a lot of them. Also thinking about this more IMO this is serious enough that I'm hoping we get rapid correction from the editors concerned since if we don't, I could see a BLP topic ban in order. For that reason, I've given discretionary sanctions alerts to the two editors involved, as well as to Ravenswings who while not involved expressed some extremely concerning views here which as I said are not at all in accordance with BLP policy. It may be that Ravenswings thinks such things but fortunately does not involve themselves on adding or keeping real names in articles so it's not an issue and if so I apologise. But it seemed better to be safe than sorry, if these editors do exhibit non BLP compliant editing in the future, it would be easier to deal with under DS rather than needing a community ban IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil Einne I am NOT the one who revert the info, pls check the article history page and read the comment on this discussion first prior messaged on BLP DS alert me on my talk page.[

  Both user Sorry sir, that's classified information and Nil Einne didnt check the article history log and jumped into ANI immaturely on me. Please check first or come to my talk page or article talk page (ping pls) and discuss prior this uncall for ANI..[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] talk 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cassiopeia: I was aware you were not the one who reverted the OP. However you were the one who falsely accused the OP of vandalism. [17] I don't know why the OP reverted your attempt at updating the scoring information [18] but it's clear from their edits that they were primarily trying to deal with a BLP violation they had identified. The most likely reason considering your edit was the most recent one at the time is as a new editor, they were trying to work out how to fix the article an edited an old version or used the undo button not understanding that the BLP violation had been there for a while. Whatever the case, it was inappropriate for you to accuse the OP of vandalism since despite their mistake, their edit was constructive since they were dealing with a BLP violation which is far more serious than some dumb ranking update. The fact you did not revert them dealing with the BLP violation is no excuse for you to falsely accuse them of vandalism. You then come to this thread after the OP had already explained what they were trying to do and given enough information that any editor with knowledge of BLP should have recognised they were dealing with a BLP violation. But instead of apologising to the OP for your false accusation of vandalism and for not noticing or dealing with the BLP violation yourself earlier, and thanking them for identifying a BLP violation, you defend your actions. You said that "The full name is support by independent, reliable sourced content" but while this may be true now, there were no inline citations for the full real name at the time which was what the OP was trying to deal with. Lacking such inline cites for the alleged full real name of a living person is simply not acceptable and is an urgent BLP problem that needs to be dealt with as the OP did. Any editor who wishes to add such information (back or initially) needs to be adding such inline cites, not just claiming they exist. And while you falsely accused the OP of vandalism, at no stage did you warn the editor who added back the BLP violation. You boast how you're an expert on MMA articles. I know very little about MMA, but I know enough to recognise that a large number of people involved are living people. Therefore if you're an expert on MMA related articles you need to also need to have good familiarity with BLP. So you should be recognising BLP violations more easily than the OP not the other way around. But instead it's clear you've failed to recognise this BLP violation and came here and faulted the OP when the only made a few minor mistakes in particular accidentally reverting your ranking update, identifying the wrong policy and coming to ANI instead of BLP. But these are all minor issues compared to the fact you and two others appeared to think it was perfectly fine for our article to have a BLP violation just because the sources probably existed somewhere but had not yet been found at the time. So yes my BLP DS alert was entirely appropriate as was my earlier comment. To put it a different way, if you're going to be "I am an experienced MMA editor" who is "I am here to help", then you need to either familiarise yourself with BLP, or stop editing MMA articles there's no two ways about it. To be clear, I've avoided calling this a serious BLP violation since it seems clear sufficient sources exist to allow inclusion of the name. However it was a very obvious and all too common one that could have easily been a serious BLP violation. Any editor with basic familiarity with BLP needs to recognise that sourcing an alleged real or full name to a scoring sheet or some other primary source is not acceptable in any way and that these are the sort of problems which can easily be serious BLP violation if acceptable sourcing doesn't exist. Actually there is just one case at BLPN which was dealt with by oversight. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne I suggest you again, to read the whole message on this threat to understand why I place the warning on editor page prior jumping into conclusion. I didnt revert, an you place a BLD DR on my talk page which is a false accusation. Please do "read" and check first prior all this uncall for message and misunderstanding. This whole ANI on my was the editor didnt check carefully on the history log and assuming of what happened, and you did the same here. To state I am an experienced MMA editor and provide assistance to the editor who is new to Wikipedia/mma article editing is a "friendly" toward the new editor and this is the way we try to help other editors in Wikipedia - you read too much into what I said and misunderstand the point. Cassiopeia talk 23:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is mostly offtopic ANI, but since the discussion is here, just a brief explanation of why this is the sort of thing which editors who regularly edit BLPs need to recognise as a problem. There are some areas and cases where it's very common for pseudonyms to be maintained with no reliable secondary sources using the real or full name of this person. One obvious area is with actors in adult films. Some editors insist on trying to add real names, using atrocious sourcing like trademark documents or other legal document, something that is completely unacceptable. To be clear, while that may be the most common area, by no means is it exclusive, there was a case I dealt with in 2021 of a singer who only discloses (part of?) her given name where editors were trying to add the full name based on ASCAP records and sheet music. And very recently, there's a case at BLPN which I wasn't involved in but where oversight got involved. Note that in this case the name is said to be in one possibly reliable secondary source, although the article on the person does mention a conviction so in some ways it's more severe but ultimately that doesn't affect whether it's a problem. Anyone who spots such problems with real or full names that are not acceptably sourced should be fixing them, either by finding sufficient reliable secondary sourcing or if there's none probably requesting revdeletion or maybe even suppression/oversight. At the very least, removing the info until it's dealt with is appropriate. It may be in MMA it's very rare that the full and/or real name is not in reliable secondary sources. If you know that but the sourcing is a problem then you still need to either fix it by finding those sources or remove it until someone does. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001:569:BC16:6200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:569:BC19:C500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2604:3D08:367D:5D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Three IP ranges in Western Canada have been genre-warring in music articles and making other disruptive edits for a few months now.[19] They keep edit warring at

I looked through the ranges I only see one warning by you a month ago. Looks like they are mostly fiddling with things a good faith way but maybe not always helpful way. I don't really see enough explanations of guidelines/warnings for any action. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This editor is continuously adding unsourced content on wikipedia page of

Kridha (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look the editing of new profile User:Tatsuro22. Tatsuro22 is inserting news incidents which did not made controversy or related to controversy in controversy section with bold sub headings to highlight the individual to look negative. There are no references that identify it a controversy. No support for him in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Angana_P._Chatterji. He is revering without showing any reasons and canvassing many people to join him.101.50.2.74 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly

@Starship SN20 As you noted in your report this IP had already been re-blocked by the time you reported them here, what do you want an administrator to do? 192.76.8.94 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think something more permanant (a few years). It is only used for vandalism. Starship SN20 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bog-standard fiber-optic business connection, possibly a school, rather than an open proxy. Regardless, it has been blocked for three months for vandalism, the latest in a series of escalating blocks, and that is sufficient for now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time Telanian7790 (talk · contribs) is back at ANI.

Quick summary Telanian7790 refuses point black to focus on the content of the open RfC at

Telanian7790 just will not let this drop, will not back away from the horse, and has spent so much time with tendentious behaviour that the original RfC has now expired. This an editor making virtually no positive content contributions to Wikipedia, this is a user just spoiling for a fight. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: on Talk:College of Policing, JulieMinkai applied a {{hat}} to part of the RfC discussion.[42] I changed it to {{cot}} and moved the {{cob}} so as not to hide RfC comments that were not part of the tangent.

Since then, Telanian7790 and Hippo43 have had a slow edit-war in which they took turns moving the start of the collapse to either show or hide more of the tangent. 10mmsocket brought it up on my talk. Since the collapse was doing nothing to keep the RfC on topic and had instead just become a new battleground for the opposing editors, I removed the collapse tags and left a comment explaining. Telanian7790 reverted the removal of the tags and my comment.

(Previous ANI discussions: Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour, Hippo43, BLUDGEONING again by Telanian7790: all 3 archived without resolution.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for clarifying. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telanian7790 has no interest in any other topic. He has been endlessly disruptive over this article. He adds nothing positive to the project. Perhaps he could be blocked in some way? // Hippo43 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate, Hippo43. I am trying to engage with you constructively and reasonably. See, for example, here: [[43]]. The problem is that you and 10mmsocket simply ignore such attempts. Indeed, you haven't even responded to my linked comment above despite the fact - and this is the irony - that I don't think we even disagree very much on the substantive issue! Instead, for weeks now, all you have both done is hurl abuse at me. Most recently, you have made baseless accusations that I am dishonest. I am not dishonest; we simply have different views. I have challenged you to explain and justify your accusation - you have failed to do so. And when other editors correctly realised that you were derailing the discussion with your false accusations and removed them, you simply ignored those editors and re-inserted them. Those editors then backed down and let you re-insert them, for reasons I frankly don't understand. My position is simple: stop derailing the conversation with personal attacks and baseless accusations of dishonesty. This should not be difficult or controversial. I do not understand why it is.Telanian7790 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [44], for example, was dishonest. It is impossible for me to assume good faith on your part, or to believe you are

competent to edit Wikipedia. // Hippo43 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.16.254.42

This IP needs blocking, dedicated solely to vandalism. As they have some knowledge of wikipedia jargon, I would imagine they have other IP's going, if anyone fancies doing some detective work.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say they have knowledge of Wikipedia jargon? I see four edits, none of which were particularly constructive, but none are using any jargon. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes. I misunderstood the edit summaries as something the user was typing, my bad. All the edits are clear vandalism though. The nicknames applied to these individuals do not exist and are insulting. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit from today was pretty silly - probably a reference to this interview. The previous edits were from weeks ago - there isn't really anything urgent that needs addressing, but if they keep doing it you can report to AIV. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Long time since I've been at ANI, but this one does not fit into AN3, AIV, or other noticeboards. Apparently,

A site block of 24 - 72 hours would be fine to stop this disruption. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has already got site block and the user is still engaged in adding unreferenced material [[45]], he also gave inappropriate warnings when in fact it was him who was edit warring just to add word "Jat" there. And for this wrong prod it looks like some kind of revenge based editing against me. Just see he added BLPPROD on an unrelated article where it is not applicable [[46]]. He also removed AfD tag from an article. I think there is a case of

talk) 05:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The user is also continuously directing personal attacks on other editors, just see here [[47]], here again putting personal attacks- [[48]]. Now just see here [[49]] the editor created a new page- duplicate version of the one Khokhar page where he had been banned for edit warring. This is open case of

talk) 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've blocked indefinitely as it's clear that the user is not here to build an encyclopaedia but rather promote an agenda. —SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

MrOllie: As a Wikipedian who is hard of hearing, can I ask we don't use "deaf" in this way? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The only time that you can see notifications on mobile is when about to edit. Hopefully they see it then. RHF 19 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish, I always see all notifications on my mobile device. Oh, yeah, I virtually always use desktop mode. 😁

Clearly good faith, so I've left them further advice, hopefully they actually read that (and everything else on their talkpage). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read the instructions carefully and I hope I’m wrong to report here.

Recently there was chaos started happening on Dalida regarding her nationality, altho the wording was agreed 2 years ago. Two useres constantly change the info, while I'm the sole one who returns it to old state. User:Binksternet and I got in edit war an hour ago. He then proceeded to threaten me with blockage on my talk page.

Isn't it biased to warn about edit war while you are involved in it? What to do, should I stop editing now as I may get blocked?

"Italian-French" or "French-Italian" is better for lead because she was a French citizen but born to Italian parents. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are correct, you should request for the page to be protected. Edit warring is not a smart choice. RHF 19 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

ping or message me 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

ping or message me 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Response posted. RHF 19 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DalidaEditor There have been no threats to you from any user to date. Even less from @Binksternet. Just when a user acts like you do it can have consequences. It's not for lack of having written to you on your page to establish an agreement, but your actions show that you formally oppose it. Look, even users come here talking about Dalida's French Italian nationality which you refute without reference, reliable/secondary sources. Unfortunately the problem extends to many other points. Elenora.C (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The

WP:OWN with DalidaEditor batting down good faith suggestions, arguing that their desired version is the consensus version. Last September, Nikkimaria tagged the bio as containing a fan's point of view, which was an accurate assessment. The problem still exists. Currently, the article has suffered edit-warring over the lead paragraph, with DalidaEditor leading the defensive tactics, resisting change. If this behavior continues, the article will not shake its fanpov tag. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, DalidaEditor is now up to 6RR, passing the

WP:3RR rule at high speed. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@DalidaEditor, you should probably appeal that block. RHF 19 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DalidaEditor is now indefinitely partial blocked from editing the Dalida biography—a boomerang. This thread can be closed as resolved. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• Thomasrobbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.131.34.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Both the user and IP are adding hoax content to a page about a recent mass shooting. They appear to be User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA (courtesy ping Meters), but either way it's getting tiresome reverting this BLP-violating material. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Tele2 ISP out of Lithuania making an edit about Frank Mortenson is a big duck to me. Meters (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ossible socks?p RHF 19 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, comment error. Think they're a sock? RHF 19 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly looks like it to me. Love of Corey (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is an SPI on this one. Users are just using my LTA data. Several previously blocked users are listed in User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA#Accounts. The behaviour is a bit odd, since the intent is usually to promote Frank Mortenson, but as I wrote, a Tele2 Lithuania IP with a focus on Frank Mortenson is unlikely to be anyone else. Meters (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another for the list, @Meters. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update, the article has been semi protected. RHF 19 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters. There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Page Protected x 72 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Will update behaviour and account/IP Meters (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ad Orientem Thanks, by the way. RHF 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Time for an edit filter. Already done. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Meters, the socks kept using an article from a Medium columnist that just posts derogatory, false claims about Frank Mortenson, like he's being investigated by the CIA, he's a white supremacist, involved with the KKK, guilty of terrorism, so I'm surprised that the former IPs and accounts were promoting him because it looked like online harassment to me. But we have less to worry about now that there is an edit filter. I have to learn not to try to make sense of the behavior of sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, I don't know if this is the same LTA or two different ones. It may be that the edit filter is working so well that they have had to switch to negative mentions just to keep him on Wikipedia. I'm not going to worry about it as long as we keep quickly whacking them. I've added the SPI and new (to me) behaviour to the report so others can see it. Thanks all. Meters (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:205:C002:D1E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
204.129.232.191/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could someone please give these two IP ranges a block? They are obviously the same person - they reply to each other's comments and edit requests and have the same obsession with the year 2020. Basically all the edits from the /64 over the past 2+ years are disruption or vandalism.

A small selection of diffs:

• Adding racial slurs to articles [50]
• Creating Vandalism drafts, e.g Draft:What is 2020 was a person?
• Making dozens and dozens of stupid edit requests just to waste other people's time, e.g. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]
• Giving out fake warnings to editors that haven't edited in months [56]
• Blatant vandalism of articles [57] [58] [59] [60]
• Dozens and dozens of unproductive edits adding their own opinions on what is good or not to articles [61] [62] [63]
• Having stupid talk page conversations with themselves [64]
• Resubmitting spam articles to AFC without making any attempt at fixing the obvious tone issues, just to waste reviewers time and add vandalism to the short description. [65]

Thanks, 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So sockpuppeting? RHF 19 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RHF 19 It's not sockpuppetry, that's just how IPv6 addresses work. One user typically gets a /64 range to themselves, which is something like a billion addresses. The IPv4 range is registered to a educational network, so I assume it's the same person editing from school. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, i see. RHF 19 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        WP:/64, quite helpful. As an observation, an entire /16 (65000+ adresses) for a school, even for every school in a county, seems ridiculously large. Oshwah blocked the range Special:Contributions/204.129.128.0/18 back on 11 March 2022, so they may want to be the one to expand this to a broader block, Special:Contributions/204.209.128.0/17 seems to cover the actual adresses being used. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Nonetheless, AS13940 has the whole of 204.129.0.0/16 and is the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE). Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• More ongoing disruption: Recreation of their vandal draft at Draft:What if 2020 was a person. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked the /64 range for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Operating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Chatul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chatul is not contributing to Operating_system#Interrupts using reliable sources. Instead, he is hindering my attempts to do so. I rewrote the Interrupts section because it had this deficient legacy version. Whereas each sentence in the legacy version was technically correct, the section suffered these deficiencies:

1. The sentences didn't form a narrative.
2. The section was entirely original research.
3. The section lacked a thesis: An operating system has an interrupt module, and its core function is to efficiently and effectively switch between running computer programs. In computer jargon, an interrupt module will likely perform a context switch. (For more information, visit Context_switch#Interrupt_handling.) If an operating system's interrupt module and context switching module are ineffective, then your computer will periodically be sluggish or freeze.

Judge for yourself if the current version alleviates these deficiencies. See Operating_system#Interrupts.

Unfortunately, improving Operating system is hindered by the unwarranted improvement tags posted by User:Chatul. His common complaint is I'm inaccurately paraphrasing the sentences in textbooks; he's being fastidiously semantic. In the Interrupts section, notice citation "[43] [44] [45] [c]"? This is citation overkill, and it's a consequence of him being fastidiously semantic.

Unwarranted Improvement tags and condescending talks are causing me stress. Maybe he doesn't realize the stress he is causing. Or maybe he wants me to go away. Anyway, I've had enough. Here are, in reverse order, his edits and talks that cause my stresses:

1. With this talk entry on May 12, 2022, User:Chatul agreed that an interrupt service routine may cause a context switch. I then added back context switch to the section's lead resulting in this version. Then he moved my newly added sentence from the article to the citation's quote section. So, I started this talk thread: Talk:Operating_system#Unethically_misquoting_a_textbook.
   
   
2. With this edit on May 11, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "The control flow change is known as a context switch." The sentence had two citations from a textbook by Abraham Silberschatz. Silberschatz explains in two different sections that an interrupt will likely cause a control flow change which is known as a context switch.
   
   
3. With this edit on May 10, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "Interrupts cause the central processing unit (CPU) to have a control flow change away from the currently running process." The sentence had a citation referencing page 308 in
   Andrew Tanenbaum
   's textbook. User:Chatul's tag justification was, "The cited text does not mention context switches." However, the sentence he disputed didn't have context switches in it either.
   
   
4. With this edit on April 20, 2022, User:Chatul tag bombed the subsection I/O channel. The subsection was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook and was well cited. Moreover, each citation had a link to the specific page in an online version of Tanenbaum's textbook, like page 55. However, User:Chatul was not pleased. Instead of improving the subsection using his own reliable sources, he generated this talk thread. I was disturbed that he accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. This talk thread caused me to run out of energy. The talk thread was 2,063 words, but the subsection had only 134 words. I deleted the subsection.
   
   
5. With this edit on April 19, 2022, User:Chatul accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. Again, I/O Channel was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook.
   
   

I'm a student of computer technology; I have no bias. Different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. User:Chatul's NPOV accusation is an unsupported denigration. Moreover, it's not just me he's denigrating. With his talk section titled NPOV: undue emphasis on microprocessors, he's denigrating all of the editors. If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources says, "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner." * The Interrupts section has multiple textbooks as sources. It's been stressful to be denigrated while studiously performing secondary research.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts_to_evade_detection says, "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit is disruptive but the overall pattern clearly is. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it." * After a long period of time, I now get stressed feelings making edits to the Operating System article. User:Chatul doesn't improve the article using reliable sources. Instead, he questions my edits in the talk page and posts improvement tags in the article.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing says, "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Engages in 'disruptive cite-tagging'; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." * See here.

Generally speaking, User:Chatul is more concerned with nuance than writing an encyclopedia. He finds a flaw in everything. Here is one example. Well, maybe technology is so vast, that flaws in sentences are unavoidable. Put another way: for a technology sentence to be flawless, it must be overly qualified. The Wikipedia principle that comes to mind is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. It says, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." * If there's a rule saying that paraphrasing a source must contain every word in the source, then ignore that rule. Otherwise, very little will get paraphrased.

Operating System is an important article in computer science. Moreover, there's a lot of reliable sources available to make it a good article. To become good, it needs to attract editors stimulated by secondary research. Please help provide a non-hostile environment by blocking User:Chatul from editing it for one year. Don't get me wrong — User:Chatul does know about operating systems. However, he needs to gain experience in secondary research to appreciate its benefits. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timhowardriley did *not* paraphrase the quotations in question, e.g., "causes" is very different from "also known as.". I ask that the administrators read the quoted text and compare it to the text in the article.

Disputing the accuracy of text in the article is not the same as disputing the accuracy of citing the accuracy of a cited source, especially when there is disagreement as to whether the source justifies the text.

Claiming a WP:NPOV issue is not a personal attack. An article can fail to be neutral for a host of reasons, not just because of biased editors.

Even after I asked Timhowardriley to maintain a civil discussion, he continued to violate

wp:NPA

, e.g., describing an error in editing as unethical. For that matter, If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias. also violates WP:NPA.

as to an IBM S/360 bias, the first operating system that I worked on not only didn't run on an S/360, it didn't run on any IBM processor.

Normally I follow

WP:BOLD

. However, when an editor has a pattern of reverting edits without discussion, then it is reasonable to start a discussion on the talk page before changing the text of an article, especially changes that require a lot of work.

The number of, e.g., {{

cn}}, {{disputed

}}, tags that I have added is far too small for any reasonable person to consider them tag bombing.

The terms "context switch" and, e.g., "chage processes", "switch processes", are effectively synonymous.

It seems strange to demand citations and then complain about citation overkill.

BTW, is it really appropriate to post the same issue to multiple notice boards, fragmenting the discussion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs)

* Regarding Timhowardriley did *not* paraphrase the quotations in question,: I always try to paraphrase from sources as accurately as possible. My self-interest in writing technology articles is it forces me to return to my college textbooks and paraphrase them. I'm then able to apply what I relearn to my work.

* Regarding e.g., 'causes' is very different from 'also known as.': Yes, there is a semantic difference between 'causes' and 'also known as'. However, this oversimplifies the conflict. You reverted all of my attempts to equate interrupts to context switch. This relationship is significant. Whatever words are appropriate, they should be used. I don't understand why you object to equating interrupts to context switches in the section. It was frustrating when you wrote things like, "Misconstruing quoted text". I stand by my accusation that you exhibit fastidiously semantic behaviors.

* Regarding I ask that the administrators read the quoted text and compare it to the text in the article.: I encourage everyone willing to help out to do so. The goal is to make the article as accurate as possible.

* Regarding Disputing the accuracy of text in the article is not the same as disputing the accuracy of citing the accuracy of a cited source, especially when there is disagreement as to whether the source justifies the text.: I don't fully understand, "disputing the accuracy of citing the accuracy of a cited source". So, I'm going to assume you're disputing the quality of my paraphrasing from a reliable source. Yes, I may incorrectly paraphrase a source. However, I know the subject matter of my edits. If you're going to correct me, your correction needs to be either persuasive or sourced. Also, I frequently re-edited my work to take into account what I learned from you.

* Regarding Claiming a WP:NPOV issue is not a personal attack. An article can fail to be neutral for a host of reasons, not just because of biased editors.: True, WP:NPOV is not a personal attack. Instead, it's an edit attack. Violating NPOV is a major taboo in Wikipedia. Use this accusation with care. My edits are paraphrases from reliable sources. If the published author isn't taking into consideration your favorite technology, then my paraphrase won't either. Instead of asserting NPOV, perform secondary research and describe how your favorite technology handles the subject matter.

* Regarding Even after I asked Timhowardriley to maintain a civil discussion, he continued to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and wp:NPA: I reject this ad hominem. Please post diffs.

* Regarding describing an error in editing as unethical.: In the talk section you wrote, "Please stop the insane accusations and enter into a civil discussion. I did nothing unethical, nor did I misquote anything. Unlike you, I'm not perfect[.]" Your remark isn't admitting to an error. Nor have you fixed your edit. I think you don't care that the quote = field in the cite book tag is incorrect.

* Regarding For that matter, 'If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.' also violates WP:NPA.: Yes, accusing you of IBM System/360 bias is a personal attack. As a matter of fact, this entire thread is a series of personal attacks. By the nature of this forum, personal attacks are the essence. Also, please be aware that my observations of your edits and talks convince me that you have an IBM System/360 bias. I raise this as an issue because it's hypocritical for you to accuse me of violating the neutral point of view policy. Another point: the IBM System/360 is completely retired. Textbook authors no longer consider this technology in their books. Therefore, my paraphrasing of their books won't take into consideration how the IBM System/360 handled the subject.

* Regarding as to an IBM S/360 bias, the first operating system that I worked on not only didn't run on an S/360, it didn't run on any IBM processor.: You have a lot of operating system experience. I wish you would use your gained knowledge to building the Operating system article using secondary research with reliable sources.

* Regarding Normally I follow WP:BOLD. However, when an editor has a pattern of reverting edits without discussion ...: This is not true. I'm happy to talk about my edits and reverts. When I engage in discussions, I try to persuade others using the quotes from my sources. Here's an example. On the other hand, when you engage in discussions, you lecture from what you know. You don't support your arguments with quotes from sources.

* Regarding The number of, e.g., {{

cn}}, {{disputed}}, tags that I have added is far too small for any reasonable person to consider them tag bombing.: You made it very frustrating to try to write the I/O channel subsection. You have experience in I/O channels but didn't help the subsection. I wrote the subsection by paraphrasing from a published textbook which is now online. You referred me to IBM's System/360 manual which describes IBM's implementation of I/O channels. I wish you would have used these sources to help edit the subsection. Instead, you lectured me in the talk and tag bombed

the subsection.

* Regarding The terms 'context switch' and, e.g., 'chage processes', 'switch processes', are effectively synonymous.: Not really. To be semantic, a context switch is a highly defined process. It also consumes a disproportionate amount of CPU cycles. Conveying this message in the Interrupts subsection should be the thesis. Under what circumstances is a context switch appropriate vs. under what circumstances can the context switch be skipped?

* Regarding It seems strange to demand citations and then complain about citation overkill.: This is why you should be blocked from editing the article for a year. You need to learn this lesson: Build a Wikipedia article by performing secondary research. Of course, use your own knowledge to direct your secondary research. In the article, cite the sources of your assertions — including the page numbers. Then the reader can verify them. The reader may find a flaw in an assertion. (A critical thinker is always looking.) Wikipedia has a forum for the flaw to be talked about. If the flaw is material and can be fixed, then the article will be improved. Instead of this approach, you perform original research and cite a series of documents without providing any page numbers. Here is your most recent example. Refer to the paragraph beginning with "UNIVAC, the first commercial computer manufacturer, produced a series of EXEC operating systems". Your method of editing gives the illusion of authority but none exists.

* Regarding BTW, is it really appropriate to post the same issue to multiple notice boards, fragmenting the discussion?: I was referred to this notice board from the edit warring notice board. See here. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to address the entire wall of text, but a few salient points.

If you point out the relevant sentence, preferably in talk:Operating system, I'll be happy to move it where it belongs.

I've been attempting to find sources that are accessible to readers, preferably online and enabled for copy and search. A lot of the relevant material is only available in hardcopy or is behind a paywall. For some systems it is hard to find secondary sources, but that doesn't mean that those systems are irrelevant.

Yes, I disagree with equating an interrupt with a context switch. In fact, one source^[1] lists an interrupt as only one of seven steps for a context switch.

S/360 is retired, but it is ancestral to and much simpler than z/OS. Further, the relevant documentation is in the public domain, while much of the inner working of z/OS is inaccessible to the public. For those reasons it makes more sense to describe OS/360 sources than z/OS.

I don't expect or want you to take OS/360 into consideration beyond acknowledging that the logic and organization of operating systems varies from system to system, sometimes within a single vendor.

If wanting the text to be correct makes me fastidiously semantic, than I take it as a badge of honor. "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." In particular, some foo is bar and even most foo are bar should never be confused with all foo are bar.

You may have convinced yourself that I have an S/360 bias, but, if anything, I have a Multics bias, despite never having had the good fortune to run on it in its heyday.:::I was referred to this notice board from the edit warring notice board. Okay, that sounds reasonable. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding In fact, one source[1] lists an interrupt as only one of seven steps for a context switch.: Of course, this is not the forum for a technical discussion. Moreover, it's too late in the process to introduce this source. Finally, your source supports my thesis that an interrupt most likely results in a context switch. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I misspoke. I said "equate" when I meant to say "relate". Sorry. Timhowardriley (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal (Chicdat)

I am here to appeal a namespace ban from the namespace "Wikipedia:" that was imposed on me back in November. At the time, I believed that a ban was far too harsh a measure. And indeed, it would have been, and likely would have resulted in little more than a warning, had it been the only issue in and around project space. I was banned for misuse of WP:BOLD, failure to heed and understand WP:CONSENSUS, and first and foremost, WP:CIR.

WP:CIA's first sentence is People learn at different rates. Some things I learned slower than others. I was still incompetent in some parts of Wikipedia, and could accept blatant spam, while only a month later deliver important comments in an RfC that got mentioned on WP:IRITALK. With my mentor's help, I was able to remedy my AFC problem, but I still understood consensus very poorly. This was supposed to be part of my mentorship course, but alas, my mentor went inactive just as I was beginning to work on it.

And with the inactivity of my mentor, I was unable to gain competence in block-related areas, and misused a policy to deliver incorrect information to a blocked editor. Then, I reverted reversions of edits of Kashmorwiki's (WP:G5), and created this stupid AN thread. I was pretty sure that I would be WP:BOOMERANGed into a ban, so I gave myself a voluntary restriction.

Sadly, the voluntary restriction didn't seem to work very well to remedy my WP:CIR issues. Now that I had no mentor, I was no longer acquiring competence, so I entered a downward spiral. I began to repeatedly discuss adding archives to RfPP, and when the first request was archived with a general consensus of no, I opened a second on the same topic, unable to read the comments and get the message that consensus probably hadn't changed in two months. When the second went the same way as the first, I finally dropped the stick (but I still got mentioned at AN). Then, following this discussion, I expanded my (not-so) voluntary restriction.

Then, I decided to begin the path to becoming a productive Wikipedian. I requested pending changes reviewer, and suceeded. (You can see my review log here). I then entered longevity, nominating articles for deletion. With that, I had competence in AfD.

Late October came, and I made some very poor edits. It began with moving a page against consensus, then I changed a template without consensus, I edit-warred across multiple longevity pages, I made exceedingly poor comments at WP:RFA2021, the list goes on and on. This culminated in disruptive editing on

WP:RfP

was the last straw. My voluntary restriction was replaced with a ban from editing Wikipedia-namespace pages. Since then there have been two incidents, both early in my ban, that I must explain.

Since October I had been in a content dispute with another editor, Renewal6, about a man's death date. I do not view this as failing to read consensus, as one editor did support my viewpoint (see User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_6#Death_of_Gustav_Gerneth), but I do see it as failing to drop the stick, as I only accepted Renewal6's viewpoint when I found evidence for it. I was clearly wrong on this matter, and if other editors see this as an issue with unbanning, I accept that. This dispute ended in an ANI discussion, in which I used WP:BANEX to make my first and only Wikipedia-space edit since the ban began.

The second issue also involved edit warring, which got me blocked. I was watching WP:VPI and noticed that an editor who had proposed something on the page, User:DSMN-IHSAGT, was making problematic edits elsewhere. On one of these pages, Names of European cities in different languages (U–Z), I reverted once per WP:BRD. Then I saw an ANI discussion, in which DSMN-IHSAGT was being reported as a WP:BKFIP sock puppet. This made me revert more. Then, I hesitated. The third point of WP:NOT3RR was about reverting LTAs, but how productive, really, was reverting edits that weren't even especially bad in principle? What I really wanted to do, of course, was comment at the ANI discussion, but I wasn't sure whether that fell under WP:BANEX or not. (In a later discussion, it was determined that it did not.) So I decided to notify admins about it. I messaged Enterprisey (User talk:Enterprisey#Block this LTA now, please). Enterprisey, however, was not active at the time, so I went back to reverting. I shouldn't have stooped to an LTA's level, but I was fueled by the personal attacks they were making. Then, I noticed that Thryduulf was online, so I messaged them. However, Thryduulf was apparently unfamiliar with BKFIP, so they saw an extremely severe edit war with both editors in enormous violation of WP:3RR. Thryduulf blocked both me and DSMN-IHSAGT for 36 hours.

I will admit that I now know by far the best way to handle this was to not make 45 reverts, but to instead place a non-cryptic message on Thryduulf's talk page before making a single revert.

I'd just like to explain one more thing. The comment on my talk page @Skarmory: Yes, it does. Maybe put the contradiction up on XRV 🐔dat (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC) was not a back-end attempt to get my ban removed. Instead it was a simple suggestion to decide whether or not I can make requests, and which comment won out. The other user did not do this and I am fine with that. To be safe, I have not made any requests on talk pages since then.

In 2022, I've begun to make much better work. For instance, note the talk page history of User talk:Дејан2021 (a paid editor and copyright violator which I identified) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#COI and disruptive editing, in which I was mentioned (but in a good way). While all of the list articles were made re-directs to List of supercentenarians by continent by @🐔dat, in a good faith effort to combat the flood of WP:NOTHERE, ... My edits have gone from problematic enough to get a topic ban to combatting WP:NOTHERE.

Since February, I've mostly become a gnome living in Special:LintErrors/missing-end-tag, mainly because of this. I've fixed over 2,000 errors, and have done it without error, except in my first month.

If I am unbanned:

If I am unbanned, I will be much more careful, meaning that in the first six months:

• I will stay out of most noticeboards
• I will discuss all edits I am making before doing them unless
  • They are requests
  • They are edits that nobody would ever have a problem with, like
    • Reverting vandalism
    • Fixing lint errors
  • They are discussing something
  • They are implementing something I previously discussed
• If there are problems with my edits, I will not try to reinstate them unless I have understood what I did wrong
• I will try my best to stay out of disputes

This falls under WP:BANEX (Appealing a ban).

🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same IP editor that started the discussion that let to the topic ban so I'm not planning on !voting here. The only comment I will make is that I did notice that after the topic ban was imposed you took to commenting a lot on

WT:CSD with more of the same kind of issues that lead to the topic ban in the first place, namely jumping into discussions that you haven't read or understood properly with comments that show you fundamentally misunderstand policy. Here [66] You start an RFC on merging U1 and G7, two criteria that apply under completely different criteria. This idea had also been discussed to death in the past, and the discussion was speedy closed [67]. Here [68] you join a discussion about extending U5 to cover webhosting in draft space. An editor provides an example page that could be deleted under the criteria if it were extended into draft space and asks why it couldn't be deleted as webhosting, to which you reply with a comment that U5 only applied to user pages (the entire thing being discussed). Here [69] You start an RFC to create a new speedy deletion criteria that would apply to any unsourced article. Rather predictably this is snow opposed [70] for a huge number of issues. Here [71] someone noticed a load of ancient redirects from old article space subpages/drafts and asks whether they should be deleted or not. You jump into this discussion with the daft comment "x3". Not only is it a ridiculous suggestion to make an entire new speedy deletion criteria for a few dozen pages and a completely unhelpful response for a newbie looking for help these pages cannot be deleted at all, because they contain ancient page history that needs to be kept for copyright reasons. Admittedly this is a few months old, but do you have any examples you would like to share where you show that you understand how to contribute to complicated discussions in a more productive way? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been making good edits to discussions since then, namely Wikipedia talk:Linter#Something's wrong with Linter, User talk:Дејан2021, and Matriarch-info's edits on my talk page. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I feel like an appeal of 1240 words (7200 characters) of readable prose should be summarily declined. It feels like not a reasonable expectation of volunteer editors, and I think block appeals are often declined for length (Yamla might be able to confirm?). Nevertheless, I skim read the above and it reads like an acceptable ban appeal, but I'm sceptical. Late 2021/early 2022 Chicdat was constantly trying to push the boundaries of his ban through constant clarifications with the banning admin (Daniel), to which Daniel eventually replied Please stop trying to find ways around your ban, it isn't a good look (to me, at least, and I assume others).[72] I recall some questionable activity in the 'Wikipedia talk:' namespace which I felt violated the spirit of the ban (staying away from backstage areas).[73][74][75] Since January 2022, when they stopped participating in non-WikiProject "Wikipedia talk:", they haven't really done any substantive editing. Going over their last 1500 edits, aside from drafting this ban appeal, they're mostly small linter fixes. There is minimal participation on talk pages [76]. This is to say, it's quite difficult to assess whether the CIR issues have improved when we don't really have a decent sample of substantive edits to look at. To be clear, Chicdat's pre-ban behaviour was quite disruptive, and the nature of it was such that it's quite difficult to impose sanctions until a lot of infractions are made. I think these bans are best kept in place for a longer period (at minimum a year), as the necessity of the ban will only really decrease with time, unless there's strong evidence to show the issues have dissipated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In fairness to the point about length, it seems like a good chunk of the statement is them just summarizing what had happened. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For non-WPANI unblock requests, I've never seen a > 1000 word request accepted. I'm very sure it's happened, I just can't recall personally seeing one succeed. I'd generally point to

  WP:WALLOFTEXT and recommend cutting the length by a factor of 10. I make no claim this particular request is too long, though. I'd expect a request going to WP:ANI to be longer. Perhaps not this long, but for example 50 words isn't likely to cut it. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I recall some questionable activity in the 'Wikipedia talk:' namespace which I felt violated the spirit of the ban (staying away from backstage areas). The ban is not broadly constructed; all it does is restrict me from Wikipedia-space. Editing in Wikipedia talk is perfectly fine, the ban statement says He is still able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say you violated the terms of your ban as-written, I said I feel those edits violate the spirit of the ban. People had concerns especially with your participation in backstage/administrative areas. As Levivich says below, many of these contributions wasted the time of others. So when you propose a new CSD (which was universally opposed) and argue this editing was perfectly fine it seems like you don't know exactly why you were banned. I think it's backed a bit by [77] as well. I believe the main purpose of the "Wikipedia talk:" exemption was so that you could participate in WikiProject activities. I would like to see some good, substantive participation in those areas before I think I can support the lifting of this ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: I did participate in WikiProject activities. I have made 22 edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather since the ban. Nobody seems to have pointed that out. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very hesitant to see this topic ban lifted due to the excessive disruption that Chicdat's editing in Wikipedia space caused. It's hard to point to specific diffs because it was akin to death by a thousand cuts. There hasn't been much disruption because the topic ban appears to be working; that's a reason for keeping the ban in place, not lifting it. Fixing thousand of lint errors doesn't demonstrate at all that a ban on Wikipedia space should be lifted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The disruption at
  WT:CSD after the topic ban demonstrates ongoing competency issues. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The most recent edit that I made to

  WT:CSD was in January. This is not ongoing by any means, and I believe that my comments on User talk:Дејан2021 demonstrate substantial competence, as does [78]. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Alternative proposal

It's clear that unbanning me isn't going to work. There are concerns about length of my request (maybe I should have removed the summary), and concerns that lifting the ban would just allow the disruption to continue. So how about just partially unbanning me, so I can edit every page beginning with Wikipedia:WikiProject? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're quickly "reading the room". As to the alternate proposal, I don't see anywhere in your OP where you mention WikiProjects, so I don't see why you're raising it now. You were banned, fundamentally, because you wasted a lot of other people's time. You made edits that required other people to take time to respond to you in one way or another, without any benefit to the encyclopedia. You did this often and it inconvenienced many other people, and you wouldn't stop when asked repeatedly, so you were banned from the project namespace because it's the only way we could think of to stop you from wasting our time. Now, ask yourself: is answering "how about just partially unbanning me, so I can edit every page beginning with Wikipedia:WikiProject" a good use of everyone else's time? It wasn't important enough for you to mention in your OP at all. You're not giving any examples of what you'd do if you could edit WikiProject pages. As you've pointed out above, you can already edit the talk pages, so why are you asking everyone else to take time out of their day to decide whether you can edit WikiProject pages? Is that a good use of everyone's time? You still don't seem to be careful about how you're using (or asking for) other people's time here. Sorry, but I oppose. In my view, the best thing you can do is withdraw this entirely, go back to editing like you have been, and don't come back here and ask everyone to spend their time focused on your ban until you have a good reason why that would be a good use of everyone's time, which means tell us specifically what it is you want to do that you can't do because of the ban, and that would benefit the encyclopedia as a whole. I understand you don't want to be banned but you gotta understand why the rest of us felt it was necessary: it's all about other editors' time. You won't convince us that you won't waste it by wasting it on a request for a consolation prize. Levivich 13:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poultry. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 09:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Chicdat: I have taken the liberty of removing you from Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Poultry task force/Participants as requested. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 10:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

User:Trey Maturin. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nationality edit warrior

So I've recently come across the Editholic (talk · contribs) who appears to mainly edit, and edit war, over people's nationalities. They especially seem to be keen on changing British to English and related. They're very clearly edit warring all over the place and could even be editing logged out in some cases to avoid 3RR. They've been warned several times and keep insisting on changing nationalities to their preferred version. Now normally I'd just block, or take to the EW noticeboard, but I have a brain scratch that this may not be a new editor and we've seen it before. I know many other editors have seem more UK nationality edit warriors and they may be familiar to them.

• Ascribing an identity to people from Northern Ireland. We generally don't do this due to the sensitive nature of it, and I've informed them of this and there was some back and forth but they really don't seem to care for anything other than their preference.
• Continual pushing of their preferred English nationality way beyond reasonable limits on the song article Space Man. [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]
• Possibly editing while logged out as User:5.55.204.219 (Editholic
• Edit warring on the article
  Sam Ryder (singer) again to push English over British regardless of sources. [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] (and related articles
  )
• Removing any edits that may suggest someone is more than one nationality [92], and [93] regardless of what's actually in the article and referenced
• More British to English [94]
• More pushing of identity on a person from Northern Ireland [95], [96], [97] for their preferred wording and boxing
• Some just bizarre ones [98] where the edit summary is "(It is unknown if Miftaraj is Albanian or Kosovan so keeping Albanian till it gets disclosed)"
• General refusal to follow any processes other than what they preferred. Several editors have warned them and tried to engage on their page or in edit summaries, but they just ignore them all.

However I do have a feeling that in addition to this disruption that we may have seen this editor before and someone else may know of them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The British --> English stuff matches a few different people. I did some advanced searching through archives, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bitterpillsandalcohol is one, and earlier this year was User:Lil Pablo 2007. Not sure if either of those match, nationality warriors are almost as common as genre warriors... --Jayron32 12:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The absolute refusal to understand what Canterbury Tail was telling them about the "Northern Irish" issue is a CIR issue even if they're not a sock. My inclination would be to indef them regardless. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh they also have a thing for removing things like places of birth etc from the article on the grounds that it's in the infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough. Indeffed as NOTHERE. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots Closely followed by another account swooping in and making their first edit for four months to revert [99]. I have protected the article. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that follows with the pattern I've been seeing about them potentially having Greek IP addresses and having an interest in Greek singers. So yes definitely glad I opened this as it's clearly something larger than a single account. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this them? 79.166.68.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I encountered this user on Josh James (baseball). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for 36 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now they're just IP hopping and socking like crazy. User:89.210.61.14 as well, I just blocked it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just blocked more of their IP hopping shenanigans at User:2a02:1388:2085:27f0::14b3:58a. That's at least 4 now I think. Canterbury Tail talk 23:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they've now taken to creating new accounts, see Editpedian (talk · contribs). Canterbury Tail talk 10:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this further, I'm certain they're all socks of Dealer07 (talk · contribs) so this is a LTA now. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sonofcalifornia disruptively editing

New user sonofcalifornia has been adding unsourced information in editorializing manner at Christopher Rufo. User refuses to discuss changes at talk page, despite multiple reversions. I have stopped reverting in recognition of 3RR. Initial edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1088052007 1st Reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1088060494 2nd Reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1088093331 —Hobomok (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(After an NPOV welcome) I notified SonOfCalifornia of ds sanctions in the BLP area after seeing their edits to Elise Stefanik and Christopher Rufo. SOC's edits include unsourced claims such as Rufo is an example of the current turn in conservative thought and policy toward lauding the policy proposals of dictators, particularly on issues concerning education and LGBTQ rights. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the passage in question. 156.1.40.20 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced all information and have not added anything that is not verifiable. Neutrality does not imply omission of elements of a subject's work that are counterfactual. I stand by my edits and thank you for your feedback. 156.1.40.20 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one example of an unsourced claim/suspect source used in your edits. You need to engage in discussion at talk per

WP:BRD rather than simply reverting back to your original edits and adding more content.--Hobomok (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User continues to revert to their own version of the page (diff that does not follow encyclopedic tone, often does not cite claims, and relies on suspect sources when they do cite claims (flux.community ?). User refuses to engage with other editors at talk.--Hobomok (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of typo-correcting script

Resolved

Recently the user Spburstein506 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made hundreds of edits using a script to correct typos. However, because the changes were not previewed by them, this caused nearly all of these edits to be incorrect.

Examples:

• Example 1 – transcription of foreign-language text
• Example 2 – proper name
• Example 3 – foreign title
• Example 4 – uncommon sports term
• Example 5 – species name

Some of the edits were legitimate typo fixes:

• Example 6

But these are very few. Having gone through around two dozen of them I think only two or three were correct. Others and I have already reverted many them, but many more remain. I believe the edits were made in good faith, but because of their sheer number I would suggest they be reverted using mass-rollback.

The original discussion about these edits was started on the Languages Wikiproject talk page. In this matter I have contacted Fastily, an admin, here. He refused to do the rollback but directed me here. There might be some other places where this has been discussed which I am not aware of.

Regards, MichaelTheSlav (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very simple case, and as I commented at the WPLANG thread, it can just be fixed with a mass rollback of the 150 or so as of yet unreverted edits in this filtered contributions list. All it takes is someone with the rollback userright and the willingness to click a few buttons using User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback. No further action needs to be taken, as the editor has stopped those fixes and it doesn't seem like they're going to restart.
  I would like to add that the correct edits are even fewer than might seem: example 6 above is presented as a correct fix, but it's not: "sackness" there is not a typo for "sickness" but an incorrect word for 'sacking'. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have mentioned this conversation at Wikipedia talk:Correct typos in one click and pinged the author of the script to inform them of the issue. TSventon (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just reverted them. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that after the rollbacks performed by Qwerfjkl and Elmidae, as well as by some smaller-scale manual fixes by a number of other editors, the offending edits have been reverted. As far as I'm concerned, this has been resolved and there's nothing else to do. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syedaadi and User:Growthsakup

These users seem to be

talk) 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (originally at 04:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC))[reply

]

I'll see if I can get someone to look into this for you. RHF 19 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore RHF 19's comment, they are blocked and cannot help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nevermind, I filed an SPI --

talk) 18:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Consistent paid editing at Neal Communities

Respected Sirs, It has come to my attention that the article Neal Communities has been continually bombarded with promotional material. In recent months User:Bobrien12 has added un-encyclopedic material including using the company's website as the sole source for several facts and figures as well as attributions etc. He admitted in this revision [100] that he was an employee of the company in question. He takes his ladle and continues to serve up a dark stain on the name of the Free Encyclopedia. I am a new editor and I am not really very familiar with procedure. I hope that the proper authorities can rectify this matter. Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Bobrien12 now is working with others on the talk page to handle this COI appropriately. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion via ISP by 16ConcordeSSC

174.212.99.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is 16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has identified himself by a real name on another editor's talk page here: The later was blocked for personal attacks and persistent addition of unsourced content in earlier incidents: here here, and here.

While his latest edits appear to be just grammar and punctuation he also appears to be soliciting surrogate editing here rather than asking to be unblocked.Blue Riband► 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this editor has been using IPs to evade his block for a long time. I filed an SPI a while back which led to a few of his favorite targets being semi-protected, but thus far no one has taken the steps needed to shut down his block evasion. That would involve blocking his IP ranges and/or semiprotecting a large number of railroad related articles. If he's genuine about wanting to be a constructive editor again, the process for appealing an indef should be explained to him, but I doubt any such appeal would be granted after this level of block evasion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRCPedia

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

The editor has continuously ignored any suggestions I have made to look at

WP:CRYSTAL

into consideration when adding additional dates that never happened but said was "predicted" despite no sources showing that it happened. He would also revert non-notable articles that had been redirected before, for the sake that he wants to "keep it".

One of his accounts, TRCTheRaulChannelProductionsInc2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked, but I will leave the IP addresses he has previously used beforehand:

• 201.76.252.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.219.105.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 187.87.77.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.255.219.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2804:FEC:28B:1700:F43E:1B9D:87E2:F9D1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2804:FEC:213:6700:5C60:CA05:7CA9:F815 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.76.239.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.0.85.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I will point out one more thing before I leave it here, that under the IP 187.87.77.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), he was placing tour tables into album articles which are supposed to go in its own article. I had reverted them as it was disruptive, and the IP began to add them back, using personal attacks towards me and a few other editors in the edit summary. As stated before, this has been going on for almost a year. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DUCK. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Partygnome1234

I indeffed this user as

WP:INVOLVED, so I've undone it. Would someone else like to take it over if that seems appropriate? Note: please see the filter log. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That wasn't an

WP:INVOLVED block no matter which way you look at it. Regardless, I've reblocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Request for an Administrator's Intervention

Not an ANI matter.

casualdejekyll 15:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

I would really appreciate an administrator's intervention. An editor Gonnym (talk) has just nominated a banner template Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) which survived a speedy deletion tag in 2017. His rationale is that the template should be replaced with the base version (Template:WikiProject Nigeria) as it doesn't allow usage of any other banner value (and modifying it to support them is just an exerise in maintenance burden). As a consequence it also causes pages to use the same banner more than once (see Talk:Ronke Odusanya)

The TFD discussion is currently underway here: the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

My rationale is that the banner template Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos aids the categorization of uncategorised new or existing Nigerian articles to the Nigerian WikiProject while simultaneously including them to their related sister WikiProjects of the remaining states of the country. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of this discussion, there are at least two Nigerian states with these sister templates, i.e. Rivers State and Lagos State. The editor's observations are based on this article Talk:Ronke Odusanya and others affected and I agreed that it is unnecessary to use the two templates at the same time. However, I opine that this issue does not warrant a nomination for deletion as it can be corrected by removing the repetitive templates from the affected articles' talk pages. However, I have also been involved in the categorizations of numerous articles using only these sister/state banner templates of Lagos State:Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos or

Nigeria: Lagos NA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Lagos.

and Rivers State:

Nigeria: Rivers State NA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by Rivers State work group.

without solely using their base Nigerian WikiProject banner templates as it automatically adds them to the Nigerian WikiProjects. Deleting this banner template will cause disruption by automatically removing these numerous categorized articles from their state WikiProjects unless there's a means of solving the problem by keeping them there after deletion."

I don't know what the outcome of the TFD discussion will be but if the banner template ends up being deleted or merged, I need an administrator to prevent numerous affected articles from being removed from their state/city WikiProjects.-Eruditescholar (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre request for intervention. Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI. As mentioned at the top, this page is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Clearly make your case for what you want to be done with the templates on the TFD page and the closer will assess what should happen. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Vandalism, personal attacks, off-wiki threat from User:CentipedeBrows

INDEFINITELY BLOCKED

CentipedeBrows blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 for disruptive editing. ― 

Talk 00:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

CentipedeBrows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor blanked the infobox of

Talk 22:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to disagree as I am in my full democratic right to make the facturally accurate edits and openly invite@

Tartan357 to a civil discussion rather than restricting my freedom of speech. Furthermore, I did not accuse him, but I did raise a justified question based off of his editing behavior. Also, why would anyone be uncomfortable with me sharing their editing history when that is quite literally their job? Is it supposed to be kept secret, because I'm not aware of that. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Tartan357 I have now made the edits to Abdul Qahars site again with sources. Feel free to contact me if you disagree with anything I wrote CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is a threat of

Talk 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

CentipedeBrows, you are confused. See

WP:FREEDOMOFSPEECH. You have no freedom of speech on this website, that essay explains why. --Yamla (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Regardless, what I wrote is factually true, and no law prohibits Wiki from publishing it, so I do not believe a blocking is warranted. The only thing such a measure would accomplish is discrediting Wiki CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CentipedeBrows: while we should never published stuff we're not legally allowed to publish in the US, this is something that very rarely arises. Most of the time we don't publish stuff because it isn't supported by our policies and guidelines rather than for any legal reasons. Even when there are legal reasons we cannot do something, it's almost unheard of that it's the main reason we don't do so, instead there are again reasons under our policies and guidelines not to do so. If you want to continue to edit here, you need to accept your editing needs to be restricted by our policies and guidelines rather than your legal rights. (I mean if your legally prevented from making an edit, that's fine, but you shouldn't be saying it's fine to make an edit because you're legally allowed to do it.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the essay, and you are correct. However, I'd like to raise the point made earlier. I now corrected my edits as @

Tartan357 wanted by adding sources. Feel free to comment on my edits. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is, quite literally, not off wiki, and it is categorically, per definition, not harassment... It said I'd share something in which I'm being treated unfairly, that's all. That I my right, regardless of what Wiki's policies are. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is not optional here and you started with an incredibly rude edit summary while blanking an info box because you didn't like a picture choice and use of an honorific, became combative and continue to be combative. Disputes are not settled by making whatever edits you want, making threats, running to reddit or being rude. You use the talk page, bring sources and discuss the issue intelligently. If you can not do that it is much easier for the community to just block you and not waste our time dealing with you.Slywriter (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the comments so far, I like this one the most. There is nothing to disagree with. I am here for intellectual debate and to share the facts, not arguments. I did honestly not know about the info box since I'm new here. Also, it's not that I didn't like the picture, it's simply that it is an inaccurate depiction of the person as also an adult as pointed out by previous users. Also, the honorific was factually incorrect. Mohammad Omar, per definition, never become mullah. I'll proceed as you've described henceforth. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) You're contradicting yourself by claiming to be here for an intellectual debate (Wikipedia is not a forum btw) while stating that there is nothing to disagree with. 2) You're also violating the

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan official to Taliban official, followed by this change. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You have now doubled down on your threat to post about me off-wiki, saying It is quite literally, not off wiki, and it is categorically, per definition, not harrassment. You've already accused me of supporting the Taliban and terrorism (because I think the article should have an infobox?)—I can only imagine how that'll play on an Afghan subreddit (I've spent some time in those). ― 

Talk 22:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@CentipedeBrows: Just to echo what others have said, it's unacceptable to threaten to or to take a dispute to Reddit because you're not happy how things are going. If you want to resolve a dispute, you should be discussing it on the English Wikipedia and not somewhere else. This means not Reddit, not Twitter, not email, not Discord, not IRC. For example, your username is absent from Talk:Abdul Qahar Balkhi and Talk:Mullah Omar which is a bad sign especially if you're instead threatening to run to Reddit. Nil Einne (talk)

• I'm not convinced this user is here to contribute outside of their own strongly held beliefs, they're currently edit warring in an article after multiple explanations here, on their talk page and in edit summaries, combined with their threats of doxing/brigading, I'd suggest a lengthy block if not an indefinite one. PRAXIDICAE💕 23:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fellow's been indef banned. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Austin012599 at List of Amphibia characters

Disruptive editing. Repeated removal of a plot point from the final episode of Amphibia added by myself and other users, regarding the portrayal of a relationship between two characters in the episode's epilogue. ([101] [102] [103] [104]) I attempted to

WP:Twitter. When I attempted to once again add a summary of their actions in the episode, this time removing any mention of romantic implications, it was once again reverted without explanation. Based on this, I can no longer assume this user to be acting in good faith. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's simple, really.

In the past, I've tried incorporating thoughts on something given by a certain actor, even providing a source. However, the incorporation was instead shutdown by someone else, and I was later told that whatever a performer says about something isn't important compared to that of a show or film creator.Austin012599 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an excuse, per

WP:WHATABOUT. Also, that doesn't explain the decision to revert the last edit that didn't mention their relationship at all. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That part was out of habit, actually.

Because of the large amount of edit warring, I became incredibly used to you incorporating the exact same piece and supposed source as before, even in spite of our conversations. I immediately assumed that you incorporated the same thing and didn’t bother to really look in on the matter, so I erased it on a whim.

I’m sorry about that.Austin012599 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just reincorporated what you previously typed.Austin012599 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I acccept your apology, but to say the text and source were unchanged is wholly inaccurate. This edit was the only one to cite Fazal's tweet, after the previous two I made were reverted. It's also not an excuse for violating

one of the listed exemptions to the rule. Furthermore, as I said before, I cited the exact Wikipedia policy that states the tweet is an acceptable source, and reverting it, in your own words, "Because I don’t think what you think, for one" is not an acceptable reason to do so. While the word of a show's creator will always take precedent, there's no reason why the word of any other member of the episode's production team is invalid, especially when the creator has not said anything to the contrary. You can't say something doesn't count just because you disagree with it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, stop asserting that certain sites are "completely unreliable" despite Wikipedia saying otherwise. This feeds back into my original point about you letting your personal feelings on a subject dictate what counts as reliable rather than what is listed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupturestriker

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

For whatever reason, film production companies have been a disruptive topic similar to professional wrestling. Everyone seems to come to different conclusions as to who produced what film. There are many primary sources, all of which could be interpreted differently. This is why {{

reliable source. Rupturestriker has been going around stripping out citations to production companies (for example: Special:Diff/1087249592, Special:Diff/1087275758). I have been trying to get these articles to say what the sources cited say instead of what individual editors think the article should say (for example: Special:Diff/1087710660). That provoked Special:Diff/1087954498: "ninjarobotpirate you blind piece of shit it’s the copyright of the film read properly before editing. And stop stalking my edits." Which, once again, removes a citation to a reliable source and adds unsourced content. Can someone please block this editor? Speaking as someone who is visually impaired, I find it particularly offensive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I blocked for 48 hours, wow that's a very inappropriate comment. The edits removing sources also do look disruptive but I suppose that's a separate matter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the editor is doing this, but it may have something to do with a belief that the content they are adding is official. Official is a variant of

WP:THETRUTH, and it trumps anything that reliable sources say. Because reliable sources are not official. Thus you get people ranting about things like copyright statements. If some reliable source says Sony made a film, that's worthless as a source because Sony's name doesn't appear in the film's copyright, or Sony's logo doesn't appear on promotional posters, or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

verify production company. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

2003:6:310F:520:CA2:99EE:3796:800D

2003:6:310F:520:CA2:99EE:3796:800D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New IP is bent on removing any non-Armenian links to anything related to Greater Armenia.

[105] Removed the Turkic etymology

Attempted to alter sourced information several times at Antiochus I of Commagene, replacing "Iranian" with "Armenian" [106] [107] [108] [109]

[110] Attempted to make the Persian connection less certain by adding his own word "probable"

[111] Removed sourced info by a high quality source from De Gruyter, dismissing its author as a "nationalist who denies ancient sources should not be given a platform on Wikipedia"

[112] Removed sourced info which mentions the Iranian origin of the name Tigranes

[113] Same as above

Clearly

WP:NOTHERE

as well. Nothing good ever comes out of this type of behaviour.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It clear that this ip has violated

WP:3RR and is now edit warring on Antiochus I of Commagene Chip3004 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@HistoryofIran Blocked. [114] this is pretty bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I widened the range to Special:Contributions/2003:6:310F:520:CA2:99EE:3796:800D/56 and this is clearly someone with a history on Wikipedia and with you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits to

WP:FRINGE/edit warring/refusal to engage by User:ForTheCulture1863

Tikar

people, edit warring/reinstating the material without explanation, and refusing to engage either in edit summaries or Talk. They had removed sourced material from

WP:OR and had also removed sourced material from another section of the article. I removed the first and restored the second with explanations here: [[115]] and here [[116]]. Very soon after, they removed the sourced material I had restored, inaccurately claiming (perhaps as a justification) in their edit summary that they had "added a reference" ([[117]]). As far as I could see, there was no new reference (and a reference would not have explained the removal of reliably sourced material). I reverted their I reinstatement (here [[118]

]) explaining the issues and warning them that if they continued to remove sourced material without explanation or discussion I would have to report them.

They same day, I removed a significant amount of

WP:FRINGE material (drastically at odds with what is known of groups such as the Tikar from mainstream genetics, linguistics etc.) that the user they had added to Tikar people

which they had repeatedly sourced to what looks like a popular news article with no academic references, a non-scholarly website, and to a Wikipedia article (thus citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia), here [[119]] and here [[120]] Their additions also contained

WP:OR

/personal interpretation. In my edit notes I explained the above issues.

More recently (the next day after the events described above), they reinstated their problematic Additions to Tikar people seeming to have not engaged at all with the explanations in my edit notes: including here: [[121]] and here [[122]]. I reverted their edits, here [[123]], again attempting to explain the problems with them. They then yet again reinstated their/similar edits to the page (here [[124]]), with the same problematic sources and again without explanation, still refusing to engage.

This user seems to show a pattern of ignoring edit summaries and reinstating problematic material without engaging, and so I fear they will continue to edit war regardless of attempts to engage with them.

Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am looking at this edit and I just don't really see the problem. This one is thinner than earlier ones, and I haven't looked at those, but right now I am not impressed. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:UNDUE and misleading weight to an idea that is no longer generally supported. Skllagyook (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I dig where you're coming from--except that the byline is for Alan Boyle, who apparently is knowledgeable enough to have that kind of job with one of the biggest news organizations in the world. Why are we at ANI, and not on the talk page? Drmies (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies:. Alan Boyle is a science writer but not a scientist nor other expert. It would seem to me that greater qualifications/specialization (in a field such as the genetics, history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. especially of Africa) would be desired to be considered an authority in a subject such as the genetic history of an sub-Saharan ethnic group, especially since the ancient history of sub-Saharan Africa and its peoples is a topic that receives relatively little attention in the western mainstream (even in academia) compared to Eurasia, and is widely subject to many misunderstandings and misconceptions and about which much popular ignorance exists. Regarding why I went to ANI: because the other user seemed completely unwilling to engage and had reinstated their edits (almost unchanged) more than once with no explanation at all, I worried that they would ignore me in the Talk page as well. But perhaps I should have attempted a discussion there first. Skllagyook (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • He may not have a PhD but he has the enormous apparatus of NBC behind him, and that should count for something. Having said that, I think both of y'all should be on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your concerns forward. However, NBC News is not an unreliable source, nor are the oral traditions of the Tikar people. The other sources I've listed have come to the same conclusion, which is that they cannot say for certain the origins of the Tikar and the Bamileke people. I stated this in the Debate section of the page so that it is clear that some question the proposed origins. I also quote an actual anthropologist who speaks on the importance of respecting and considering oral tradition when researching African ethnic groups. Those sections on the oral tradition that you keep removing are vital to honestly depict the Tikar people and their history.

talk) 01:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:CONSENSUS would be edit warring. I request that you undo the reinstatement until a consensus is reached. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The oral tradition supports the theory. The sources support the oral tradition. The sources by scholars in the Debate section conclude that they can't deny the oral tradition and say it's incorrect, because they don't know if it actually is incorrect. They all say that they can't disregard the fact that Tikar elders believe their oral tradition, which says they were nomadic and migrated into the Nile River region. You want a source that says they are 100% from Egypt. I'm telling you that is impossible, due to the fact that no researchers have studied the Tikar since the 70s, and still are uncertain about their origin. This is why I state this as a debate topic on the page. But we shouldn't and can't discount the importance of Tikar oral traditions just because you don't agree with them. Oral tradition is a key component in the cultural anthropological research for African ethnic groups. It's not about personal interpretation. It's about understanding the culture and identities of those you research in our to interpret who they are and what they believe.

talk) 02:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• *in order to

talk) 02:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@ForTheCulture1863: Do the scholars/any of the scholars you cited in that section state that that the theory of Egyptian (let alone Arabian) origin is credible/can't be discounted? If so, there is it stated and by which source? If their work is no later than the 70s, that is indeed unfortunate, as much work/many new significant discoveries in African history, archaeology, and population genetics have been made since then (and as far as I know, some now outdated ideas about Africa may still have been held by some of the mainstream at the time). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error. I meant to write that they've been researching since the 70s and still are uncertain about their origin. I've founded several scholastic accounts. One article focuses on the Bamum people, who were said to be linked to the Tikar and Bamileke peoples before the groups settled the Western High Plateau in Cameroon. In the article "The Bamum Dynasty and the Influence of Islam in Founban, 1390-Present," researchers Forka Leypey and Matthew Fomine cite the Sudanese origin as credible and determine when the groups more-than-likely separated and became different ethnic groups with different languages. I can cite this on the Tikar page if it will alleviate concerns.

talk) 02:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Western Sudan (a region in West Africa (which would seem more in line with mainstream views of groups like the Tikar). It would be important to determine which region they are speaking of. (Here is the abstract: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262095862_THE_BAMUM_DYNASTY_AND_THE_INFLUENCE_OF_ISLAM_IN_FOUMBAN_1390-PRESENT) Skllagyook (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, this particular article and others speak about the Tikar/Bamileke origin in Sudan the country. Other articles do as well, with specifics about empires. To alleviate concerns about oral tradition, I'll cite those scholarly sources. Thanks for your insight on the issue.

talk) 04:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Western Sudan/Sudan (region) (i.e. the "Sudan" in the sense that includes much of the central and west African Savanna zone). The also state that "some" (perhaps not most) scholars support it. But they do not attribute or mention ideas of Tikar origins to Sudan the country (nor Egypt or the Middle East). If you have other sources that do give credence to that idea, please share them. Skllagyook (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@GuinanTheListener: Since I now see that you have changed your account name (from ForTheCulture1863), I am pinging you using your new handle. Please see my latest reply above in case you have not already (perhaps due to the account change?). I also, would like to again request that you undo your last reinstatement of your disputed edit to the Tikar page which you did without WO:CONSENSUS before an agreement could be reached or substantive discussion had taken place (after it was reverted by User:Drmies here [[127]] due to its disputed nature). Restoring a disputed edit without consensus during a discussion of that edit is edit warring and is against Wikipedia policy. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, had to step away to work and didn't see your first reply. I have no issue deleting the content until I have the time to provide all of the credited sources with quotes. This particular article mentions them possibly being the original founders of the Bornu kingdom. According to scholars, the same mystery surrounds the Bornu kingdom due to its very surprising parallels to Sudanese culture and identity. I've studied the works of other researchers who also cite the Sudanese origin because of that as well. But it's not enough to have the info; I have to cite it with due diligence. I hear you. I do. And again, it was not my attention to start an edit war. GuinanTheListener (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GuinanTheListener, you are not listening. If you again restore this content, which is being legitimately challenged, I will be happy to block you for edit warring, even though I am not completely convinced of the content's inappropriate nature to the extent that Skllagyook is--but this edit warring is disruptive. I still think all of this should be happening on the talk page, by the way, and not here, but that's a separate matter. I hope that Skllagyook will ferry some of this over to the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening, and I've read everything stated to understand their opposing prospective, rather than to simply be combative. I also have not made any edits since Skllagyook and I began the discussion on the challenge and brought the edit warring policy to my attention.

And I agree that more citations are needed in the article in the Origin section. I will remove the content until I gather all of the legitimate sources that cite the claim as credible. GuinanTheListener (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing/vandalism

Blocked indefinitely. JBW (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• Billgabriel1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User in question has already been reported at AIV and report remains up, but has been unactioned for a few hours now as the user continues their same disruptive edits/vandalism. They are continuing the same disruptive editing/vandalism from previous IPs 2001:EE0:40C1:CA9C:0:0:0:0/64 and 123.16.202.191, and was previously blocked on the range as well. Should be a quick/clear indef block, as it's very evident they are

WP:NOTHERE. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Nwonwu Uchechukwu P continued use of mirrored sites as refs

cn}} tags on various articles with references to poor quality sources, most of which are uncredited mirrors of the relevant WP page. 3 different users (including myself) have warned them against this / reverted their edits. All of the edit summaries have some variation of added citation # 1lib1ref #AfLibWk #IWUG so I don't know if they are using a tool to do this, or doing it as part of an organised process. Spike 'em (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Spike 'em The edits are related to meta:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account. However, we really need to somehow put an end to this well-intentioned but misconceived "campaign", which does a considerable amount of harm. JBW (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW We could set up an edit filter to tag or rate limit the edits, like we did with the #WPWP campaign a few months ago? Even just having them tagged would make it much easier to clean up afterwards. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, which I hadn't thought of. I should think it would be a very easy edit filter to create, as the edits are specifically tagged in their edit summaries. If someone who is able to create edit filters is willing to do it, that will be helpful. (I still think that would be a poor second best to the people responsible for the campaign accepting that they have made a mistake, and closing it down, though.) JBW (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBWThere's already general purpose contest tracking filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1073. To get it to tag edits related to this contest you would just need add the hashtag to the hashtag string in the first line, i.e change hashtag := '#WPWP|#W4HR'; to hashtag := '#WPWP|#W4HR|#1LIB1REF';. Special:AbuseFilter/1158 is the throttle to limit the rate of contest edits for #wpwp, a duplicate with a different hashtag could be made for this contest if it gets out of hand. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per a request from

EpicPupper. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

1Lib1Ref had been going for several years. AfLibWk is a new one, I think, but see here for more details. I think we need to accept that competitions like this are going to become more and more common and that there is a need to encourage greater communication with/from organisers including how the en.wp community will deal with poor edits made under a competitions banner. Nthep (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nzechimere blocked one week --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be related to the above #User:‎Palow s coba11 / another unresponsive mobile editor? Also similar issues there too. I doubt sockpuppetry is involved, but both seem to be editing to achieve the same objective, without understanding how to do so properly. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Jk deenu

A new user (Jk deenu) keep adding shows on his own pattern, he is keep re-editing and adding, I requested him to not add but he didn't listen. He is keep editing and re-adding after removing in some pages, the pages are:

• List of programmes broadcast by Hungama TV
• List of programmes broadcast by Super Hungama
• List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Indian TV channel)
• List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (India)
• List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon Sonic
• List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India)
• List of programmes broadcast by Pogo
• List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!
• List of programmes broadcast by Discovery Kids (Indian TV channel)

Sorry for poor English, kindly do something

talk) 10:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked by Bbb23. A sock apparently. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making A Big Deal Over Language Translations

User:Hotwiki recently made a big deal over something small, which is translating Filipino titles into English. He considered some of my translation wrong even if they're correct. I even gave him a mini lecture about a certain Filipino-English translation in my talk page. But, he dismissed them as if they're disruptive. I never ever translate anything just because it sounds better. It does makes more sense, but it's still a direct translation. There was nothing personal with my edits since they're never disruptive. My edits are done in good faith. It's that he's so judgmental over them. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you should have notified me about this report in my talk page. Second, if I made a big deal out of it, then you also made a big deal about it reverting it your preference more than once. If you are gonna "translate" a Tagalog word into English language,you should use the correct translation and not twist/alter the wording/order of words to your preference.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also "giving me a mini lecture" is highly a dismissive behavior towards your fellow editors. As I warned you in your talk page, refrain from resorting to personal attacks.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is to give an example on a certain translation. Translations don't necessarily need to be literally direct. Whether the order is altered or not, it's still a direct translation no matter what. And what I said is never a personal attack. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the nth time, the translation I did is not (and will never be) based on my preference. Translations don't really need to be exactly direct. Whether the order is twisted or not, it's still a direct translation no matter what. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for your translations? You are not necessarily a reliable source, but it usually should be fine. Make sure you're following

WP:TRANSCRIPTION. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

May I add, can I bring up User:Superastig's habit of persistent usage of Facebook as a reference. I've told the user to use third party references[128]. However to this day, the user has been using facebook links as references[129][130][131][132][133] Is there something that can be done with this issue?TheHotwiki (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: do you have something to say about you using facebook links as a reference to your edits? I never got a response in your talk page.TheHotwiki (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail:, the bad translation is "Run" which is in Tagalog means "Takbo". The original title is listed as "Tumakbo Ka" which is "You Run" in English. A quick Google translation search proves this.[134]TheHotwiki (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I search them on Google. Sometimes, I go beyond Google translate. And they give me a number of English translations, not just one. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what did you get if you google the English translation of "Tumakbo Ka"? It definitely wasn't "Run" when I googled it. It is "You Run". See the difference?TheHotwiki (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually rely on Google Translate when translating a phrase or sentence. Sorry. Tumakbo ka means telling a certain person to run. Therefore, whether there's ka or not, it's still run. So, be it. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more reliable, Google translation or your opinion? Google translation proves that your translation wasn't right and accurate.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them. Google Translate doesn't always give the direct translation. I only use it when it comes to certain words, not phrases or sentences. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to tell that Google translation of TWO Tagalog words is accurate. Are you insinuating that Google translation is wrong yet, we should use your "translations".TheHotwiki (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Tumakbo ka!' is (slightly impolite) run! (2sg. imperative), no? Why not ask @Austronesier:?  Tewdar  14:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because "First Lady you run" is not an accurate translation and does not make sense to an English speaker.  Tewdar  15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(bystander comment) Does either of you actually speak Tagalog? Fluently? If so that person's translation is preferred to Google Translate, which is very helpful, but can be wrong, with some languages more than others. I do not speak Tagalog, at all, and can't opine on the translation, or Google's Translate's accuracy with respect to Tagalog. I do however translate from other languages into English at times, and Google Translate is actually discouraged unless no speaker of that language is available. If you both speak Tagalog, and disagree about the proper translation, that is another matter, which will be taken much more seriously if you stop insulting each other. This forum is for behavior issues but hopefully my input on translation policies is helpful. If it doesn't resolve the matter, then perhaps someone else has a suggestion. I am thinking Dispute Resolution, but it isn't for me to say. Elinruby (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Ask somebody who knows that language. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both know the language I think, but they disagree about the best translation of the 2sg. imperative into English. Alas, I am but a beginner in this lovely language, but I am reasonably confident that Tumakbo ka is being used as a 2nd person singular imperative of 'run' here. Thus, "First Lady, Tumakbo Ka" is most naturally translated into English as "Run, First Lady!" (or "First Lady, Run!") But, hopefully Austronesier will be along in a bit to tell me if I'm right or a complete plonker.  Tewdar  15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(nod) I just wanted to address the part about Google Translate being the arbiter of correct translation. I see a lot of horrible machine translations, although the newer ones tend to be a little better. Anyway, glad you were here, fading back into the wallpaper now. Elinruby (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tewdar, your Tagalog is clearly better than my Cornish :) Folks, Google Translate fails. Please, please, never rely on it! "Tumakbo ka." means "you ran", "Tumakbo ka!" means "Run!" with a singular addressee in non-honorific speech. It never means "you run" in a simple present statement. The pronoun is obligatory in imperative clauses, but this doesn't mean we have to copy Tagalog syntax rules into English. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Salamat! So, "First Lady, Tumakbo Ka" is best translated as "First Lady, Run", (imperative) yes? Given the context I think it more likely than "First Lady, you ran."  Tewdar  18:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops, it's this article (episode 57)  Tewdar  18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewdar: Yeah, it's First Lady, Run! –Austronesier (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Sige. Salamat ho!  Tewdar  19:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little common sense is in order here. In English, there is no question that we would phrase the imperative without the pronoun. I don't know a word of Tagalog, but I know that in English, a title in which the subject is identified and then implored to do something would read, First Lady, Run!, and our rules should facilitate conveying exactly that to our readers. I would suggest that any editor pushing to insert a "You" there be given a stern disapproving gaze. BD2412 T 19:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fixed now, someone go ahead and close this, there probably won't be any more trouble about that now. 👍  Tewdar  19:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile reversions on 4chan /pol/ page

Gkoogz blocked as

WP:NOTHERE by Acroterion as a normal admin action. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

• /pol/ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I recently contributed several seperate edits to the 4chan /pol/ page and my several contributions were totally reverted by another user despite lack of justification. The arbitrary reversion of rule abiding content in its totality (specific example: the reversion of a properly cited claim that the site has been called "wildly offensive" in by a reputable outlet) clearly represents bad-faith vandalism and now that user is accusing me of starting an edit war, which is not my intention. I simply request that my contributions be respected and if a portion of my contribution violates some rule then we can work from there, but there is no reason for me to be entirely excluded from the page. Can I have a dispute resolution here? Thank you. Gkoogz (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a

WP:NOTHERE. DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That too. Wikipedia is not a game show, but I see another admin has given them the

lovely parting gifts. —C.Fred (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:NONAZIS a bit too much to be editing here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(

three revert rule, and your claim of reverting vandalism falls short, so you don't qualify for that exception. —C.Fred (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

<ec>::I've blocked indef. In their short career they've made a practice of treating disagreement as vandalism, and haven't responded to warnings, brushing them off and coming to ANI with the same attacks on those who disagree. I see no sign that this will change. They are welcome to craft an appropriate unblock request to change our minds. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

TPA of 180.253.44.41

Could the TPA of this IP please be revoked? They are repeatedly making use of their talk page access for things it's not meant to be used for. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done by PhilKnight. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:108.48.147.41 on Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

Articles:

Talk:Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

Main account:

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

Sub accounts:

2600:1003:B02C:BDAA:7C55:4EA7:9D7B:B438 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I regrettably make this report to the noticeboard as I see no progression

in the discussion of the article

aforementioned or change in behavior from the user. Although this matter is not technically urgent to the article in question (as it is temporarily locked), I have no doubt content will be reverted once the article will be unlocked. I want to see how a third party, or administrator, wants to proceed given the circumstances.

The IP was blocked once for edit warring, found here. After the article was unlocked, the IP restored the version not-agreed upon and did not follow advice from the article's talk page given by me and several users:

• First revert at 18:55, 12 May 2022‎
• Second revert at 20:12, 12 May 2022‎

After such, the talk was moved back to the article's talk page and IP's talk page to come to an understanding, which led to IP stating: Blocking does nothing as there are plenty of ways around it. Keeping page protected forever is not a smart option either. Keep in mind, we can see whenever protected expires so each time it ends, it WILL be restored if needed. via IP's talk page (quote source included in both diff links).

In an effort to rebuild consensus, another thread was started to discuss the conflict of interest that was inadvertently disclosed by the IP and sources found within the article that is not reliable. This resulted in little consensus building and uncivil language being used from the IP. I agree with other editors that the language was unacceptable, with quips such as:

• "As for your request for me to stop making sure the page is correct, the only way that threat will be retracted is if the page no longer exists...As for if its protected, I will be keeping a close eye on protection expiration and making corrections as soon as protection expires." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "You and other editors have said, the writing isn't encyclopedic. OK, that's fine, rather than just revert and remove the stuff, go through it and change it to sound encyclopedic..." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "The edit war, or disrupting the encyclopedia as you people are calling it, is how you look at it. I look at it as just trying to protect the article and make sure nothing important is missing, not an edit war or disruption. If we're going based on you people's logic though with calling it an edit war, then of course the war wages on as the only way to end a war is with a treaty, and we've not reached that, at least not to this point, so it's inevitable, that the war must wage on." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "I do hope we come to a resolution, but if not, then I guess we're in for an indefinite edit war." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "...however, don’t think you guys are able to judge what’s important bout Funland, as you don’t know enough bout the park. Nothing wrong with that, you guys just aren’t educated enough on it. The reason the edit war would be indefinite is because people always say, you gotta fight for what’s right, and that’s all I’m doing, fighting for what’s right." – 2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• "As for it not sounding encyclopedic, I’ve said this multiple times now, but I’ll say it again, I’m not saying don’t edit the article, I’m just saying, if you do, mainly focus on grammatical errors like bad wording, extra words, typos, etc." – 2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Seeing this, I took to the IP's talk page to address the language. With reinforcing comments such as: Honestly though, I'm not concerned about making potential enemies with other editors, my goal is to make the Funland gets the respect and credit its earned and deserves. So, if in order to accomplish that goal, I have to make enemies with other editors, and be the last man standing, I'm cool with that. I'm aware this could go on indefinitely, but i'm in this for the long haul. I know it's not gonna be anytime soon, but eventually I'm confident that the correct version of the article will stand. Even if that means no other editor is even paying attention to the page. – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems simple, they are

WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia with other editors. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Because of the repeated promises to resume the disruptive editing as soon as the semi-protection expires, I have extended the semi-protection of

Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) to indefinite. And I have blocked the IP for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The two sub-account IPs are now globally locked by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description of edit war. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grudziądz and User:Merangs

Hello. I am working on an article for Graudenz for the Central and Eastern Europe contest. I am a professional genealogist who specializes in Prussian research and specifically the city of Graudenz. Last night, I did many edits and improved headings, etc. I woke up to see many of my edits had been undone by Merangs.

Normally, this is fine as I am not perfect. However, the comment on the revert was "something doesn't seem right". There was no explanation as to why the lines were deleted. A sourced/citated fact was deleted by Merangs. That fact was already in the Wikipedia article, I had just moved it to the introduction. There was no reason for it to be deleted. I created a heading for it and moved it back this morning.

I went to leave a comment on Merangs talk page. That's when I noticed several other edits have been having the same problem with Merangs deleting and reverting their articles and citations without explaination or accountability or spirit of working together. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Merangs

Other's having the same issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Merangs#Article_of_Vilnius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Merangs#Why_did_you_delete_my_changesALLNP_(talk)_02:45,_11_May_2022_(UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Merangs#Really,

Thank you for your assistance. TheTypingKat (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTypingKat. I've created a separate heading for your report. I see Merangs did give reason in their edit summaries. It looks like this is a content issue, have you tried starting a discussion on the articles ntalk page? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm rather surprised that a self-proclaimed "professional genealogist" refers to a city that has been known as "Grudziądz" for over a century as "Graudenz". Just use the [expletive deleted] talk page if you think the issue needs discussing.

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(Possible) WIKIHOUNDING from user

I've been on Wikipedia since Feb of this year, since March it appears that I'm being consistently being

WP:HOUNDed by User:MehmoodS. Some examples of this:[135] where he removed everything I added to the page (added intermittently over a period of 3 weeks), content that was sourced by university scholars. He removed it under the edit summary "Rv to Last stable version, Vandalism.caused by blocked sock accounts", and also did the same to Ranjit Singh's page [136]

with the same edit summary. It seems highly unlikely that was an accidental removal of the content I added.

Later on, reverting an edit I made to the article "Siege of Sirhind" that was sourced to a 1993 Cambridge University Press [137]. Later on RSN he was told that editors must comply with

WP:BRD and that him reverting was not acceptable. After that, he added a source published by Singh Bros, and put the title and publisher in the citation as The New Cambridge History of India and the publisher as Cambridge University [138]. On the Battle of Samana, he tried to add content that was written by someone who had zero credentials in history or academics, and told ME to go to RSN for a source that HE wanted to add. [139]

. He was also told on RSN that the source was not RS.

On Banda Singh Bahadur's page, he removed a page from the inline citation I added [140], which was unacceptable as both pages of the book had relevant content and you're allowed to add more than 2 pages into a citation, hence why it says "Page(s)" when you add the information for a source. When I added it back, he made an edit with this edit summary: "Cite url was for page 59 so removed 256 and kept but if information exists on 256, it can be readded.". See [141], also note he didn't remove the page this time (ostensibly did that to get the last word).

Following me to the TeaHouse: [142] and [143]

When a content dispute occurred later on the Siege of Sirhind page, before engaging in the discussion on the talk page [144], he posted this message to an admin's talk page "This is why I think an admin should step in to resolve this issue as Kamhiri still disagrees and continues to revert." despite the fact that I had posted on the talk page and he was told multiple times to comply with BRD and that involving admins or 3rd editors is the last thing to do.[145] under the edit summary "Need admin involvement", which seems to me seems like an intimidatory way to get an upper hand in a content dispute.

Also yesterday, when I updated some pages with a newly published peer reviewed source, he reverted them [146] without doing due research on the source (later reinstated hwoever).

All this and much more (including editing pages right after I've edited or updated them even when he's never edited them before or they're obscure pages unlikely to be on his watchlist, something that has happened countless times) seems to me that this user is trying to cause me distress as per the definition laid out in

WP:HOUND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Baseless accusations. Multiple times I have made it clear to this user that I have numerous pages from Maratha Empire, Mysore Empire, Sikh Empire, religions under my watch list to prevent from vandalism and disruptive editing but this user still continues to makes baseless accusation especially due to his edits being questioned or reverted without reaching a consensus. I even tried to involve admin for assistance (get advice on how to best resolve dispute) regarding dispute on article Siege of Sirhind and requested following message on admin's RegentsPark talk page [147] and user Kamhiri (talk about hounding), follows me to admin's talk page and proceeds with his accusation [148] and he has repeated same baseless accusation here. When adding citation, user doesn't follow citation template and multiple times I had to fix the problems, such as incorrect page numbers, missing publisher information, sometimes making it difficult to find the exact quote to verify the information. But all these issues could be resolved on a talk page but the user fails to do so. Even regarding Siege of Sirhind, after 3 edits, user finally decides to use talk page but before even trying to reach consensus, he goes on to make 4th edit. And even on Siege of Sirhind talk page, you can see that I am willing to work with him as long as justified resolution is put forth to resolve dispute. My sense is that the articles that this user likes to make edits to, he prefers it the way he wants and doesn't like to be questioned. MehmoodS (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, I have always went to the talk page whenever a content dispute ensued, it is you who ignored BRD despite being told numerous times of it, and you that involved an admin before even engaging in the talk page.

• Admins please note this blatant lie: " When adding citation, user doesn't follow citation template and multiple times I had to fix the problems, such as incorrect page numbers, missing publisher information, sometimes making it difficult to find the exact quote to verify the information." I would ask MehmoodS to provide diffs proving this, I use the automatic function every single time I add sources so the publisher, isbn, author name etc is automatically provided. I double check the information and then manually add the page number as that is the only parameter excluded by the automatic function. I also don't mind being questioned, I just don't like dealing with frivolous, confrontational edits time and time again and having it made obvious that I'm being followed. Kamhiri (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the first two examples above and see that neither talk page has any discussion about the disputed edits. Just sort out the content issues there, without edit-warring by readding the disputed content to the articles, before coming to this page.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger, there is currently no content dispute happening between us, the first two examples happened 2 months back and have already been re-added, however I posted here about the consistent confrontational edits done by MehmoodS done for no overridingly constructive reason, which to me appears to be done to cause me distress. Kamhiri (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to look into this any further if you let the blatant lie stand that you always went to the talk page about content disputes and that someone else violated

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger, there was no need to go the talk page of the article in those first two cases (which I'm assuming you're referring to), it was resolved after I reverted the edit, after which no reverts occurred from Mehmood. There was simply no reason to go the talk page there. Are you referring to the first two diffs or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs

)

Phil, no part of dispute resolution involves looking at part of the complaint and then accusing the complainant of lying. This is not helping anything. (I will look more into the substance of this later, it seems like a resolvable dispute.) Levivich 20:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Phil, I understand that your reaction may have been in part because of the lack of mention of the issue being resolved in my original report, I will also admit that I made a revert against my better judgment in Siege of Sirhind [149], however I felt that Mehmood going and asking an admin to step in and resolve the issue before even engaging in the discussion on the talk page [150], felt TO ME like an unfair and unnecessary way to engage in a content dispute. Kamhiri (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To avoid any confusion: I'm not an administrator, just a regular editor. What struck me most is that I read Talk:Siege of Sirhind and saw that Kamhiri (K) and MehmoodS (M) have been editing that article together since March, have had a number of content disputes, but have both been engaging in what seems to me to be ordinary, productive discussion on the talk page of that article. So how could this productive, collaborative relationship between two editors boil over to the point where M is complaining about K to an admin, and K has filed this ANI against M? It seems to me to be some mutual misunderstanding and also some mutual frustration that is understandable between two people who've been debating content issues for a couple of months. Some specifics:
  • M's March 3 reverts of K at
    WP:NOTVAND
    ) but they were disruptive for various other reasons. And, at that point in time, K had less than 50 edits. It's very understandable that M would have thought, at that point, that all the new accounts editing those articles were the same socks. In any event, K reinstated (good) versions, which M didn't re-revert. And to emphasize the point, on March 6 at Ranjit Singh, another editor reverted to the pre-sock edits, before self-reverting and reinstating the changes: that just shows how common this sort of thing is. Don't take these March reverts personally, K, it seems those had more to do with the sock than with you.
  • April 18 at
    WP:BRD
    . After another round of revert/reinstate, K reverted it again, and M did not reinstate it. So while M was wrong to reinstate their bold edit, the whole thing was over and done on April 18.
  • M's April 20 edit at Seige of Sirhind did in fact incorrectly have Cambridge University Press as the publisher for a book that was actually published by Singh Bros., but just look at that diff, and it's plain that this was a simple copy/paste error. There are two sources added: one is from Cambridge, the second is from Singh but uses the same publisher and date as the first. This is an obvious "innocent mistake". (I've made copy/paste mistakes a hundred times, who hasn't?)
  • April 25 at
    WP:AGF that M legitimately thought that the citation was only supposed to be to one page, and not two pages, because the URL pointed to one page. That was a mistake, but it's an understandable mistake. When K reinstated the page number, M did not revert again (unlike a week prior at Battle of Samana, so that shows progress right there). This edit by M isn't to get the last word, it was a "dummy edit" (see Help:Dummy edit
    ) to explain the reason for the revert. That M didn't remove the page number again and instead explained the reason for their earlier removal is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  • M following K to the Teahouse: Well, we can see from the archives that M had posted to the Teahouse in March and April. Specifically, on April 19. So it's not surprising that M saw K's message on April 26, or the second one on May 3. This isn't M "following" K to the Teahouse, this is M noticing that K posted to a page that M had also recently posted to.
  • M posting on an admin's talk page about K: on one hand, complaining to an admin about another editor, without even pinging the other editor to let them know about it, is not something anybody approves of. It can be seen as going behind someone's back to get them in trouble with an admin. On the other hand, when an editor gets frustrated, it's perfectly normal for them to reach out to another, more experienced editor for help, and often that more experienced editor will be an admin. We don't want to discourage editors asking each other for help when they're frustrated. Asking for help is a lot better than edit warring!
  • Yesterday at Battle of Chappar Chiri: Here, K made the bold edit, adding a new source; M reverted; and K re-instated it. M did not re-revert. This is exactly what happened on April 18 at Battle of Samana, but in reverse.
  • K's allegation in this ANI thread that M is "editing pages right after I've edited or updated them even when he's never edited them before or they're obscure pages unlikely to be on his watchlist, something that has happened countless times": K, I would check again. In my review, this is not true. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true. For example, at Battle of Chappar Chiri, you're the one who edited the page, which you'd never edited before, within one day of Mehmood editing it.

Bottom line: it's not hounding. K is a new editor, editing in a specialized topic area in which M is also a regular editor. It's to be expected that M will edit after K because many articles will be on M's watchlist. It is also expected that K will edit after M because K is a new editor working their way through a topic area. I'll say again: both editors are clearly capable of serious and productive collaboration, as evidenced by the discussions at

WP:AGF a bit more, be extra nice to each other, just remember that neither of you is "the bad guy", you're just two people working in the same topic area with inevitable disagreements about sources, etc., but you both know how to work through those disagreements. I hope you can re-focus on the positive aspects of your editing together over the past few months and leave any bad feelings in the past. Cheers, Levivich 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Levivich, thank you for your comment, I definitely agree with much of your analysis, particularly regarding the dummy edit (thank you for informing me about that) and the inevitable overlap of the pages we edit to; certainly I do not expect him being forbidden to edit a page I have edited or vice versa. However, I respectfully disagree with the TeaHouse issue, it seems much more likely (at least to me) some following was involved rather than constant attentiveness to discussions taking place on the TeaHouse. I also believe that some form of discussion should occur on the talk page before inviting uninvolved editors or asking help from admins (unless overt vandalism is taking place); and the dispute resolution page on Wikipedia states that "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a Third Opinion (3O), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute."- [151]. I still believe some of the user's conduct was a bit unwarranted. But other than that I very much appreciate your comment and hard work, duly noted, and will be taken into consideration and applied. Thanks once again. Kamhiri (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Levivich. Regarding notifying admin, you will notice from Siege of Sirhind talk page, during initial discussion, before consensus was reached, user reverts the changes and then mentions that he will accept the opinion of a 3rd user in this regard [152] Therefore, admin was contacted to get assistance and advice on resolving the dispute. But then Kamhiri came up with a proposal and the dispute was resolved. If this approach would have been taken in first place, knowing well that another editor has been contributing to same article, there would have been no issue. But all well that ends well.MehmoodS (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that MehmoodS had posted the message on the admin's page before engaging in the discussion on the talk page, to which I responded by stating on the talk page that I will accept the 3rd editor (admin involved)'s opinion. The reason for that was because your message on the admin's page had (at that time) made any discussion on the talk page redundant as I was expecting the admin's intervention shortly after. Only after the admin's delay in responding did I move ahead with the discussion on the talk page. This was already explained on RP's talk page. Please also note that MehmoodS also claimed that he has to repeatedly fix up after my work because I add incorrect citation templates, a claim he has not provided any proof or diffs for. Kamhiri (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are some details. Sometimes getting an advice isn't harmful in resolving dispute as you could be directed to right platform if needed. Apologize if there was an oversight earlier but here are details (this dispute has been resolved):

00:07, 14 May 2022 I mention - get 3rd opinion or if you would like have admin involved. No need for edit warring. 00:18, 14 May 2022 - I contacted admin for assistance in resolving dispute after user's 3rd edit. 00:23, 14 May 2022 - I respond to Kamhiri's discussion on talk page. (Didn't let me know or notified of any discussion at this time on talk page but I noticed it when trying to actually start one) 00:26, 14 May 2022 - I let admin know that we are discussing dispute on article's talk page. (Indication that we are trying to work on it so his assistance won't be needed) 00:34, 14 May 2022 - Kamhiri reverts without consensus with description of revert - no specific onus on me to seek WP:DR, you can as well. Although we are supposed to go by WP:BRD which you were also told on the RSN. I started a discussion on the talk page; please dont edit war 00:41, 14 May 2022 - I let admin know that user Kamhiri continued to revert while the discussion was in progress. 01:01, 14 May 2022 Kamhiri mentions in talk page - "I will accept the opinion of a third user in this regards."MehmoodS (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP and New Account Protection at Black Sun (symbol) and IP making five reverts in the past few hours

Can we get Black Sun (symbol) locked from IP and new account editors? (Done) This article is constantly getting hit with blanking and malicious editing—including new users sometimes sneaking in messages—from drive-by IPs in connection to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. At this point, it's out of control and the article could use protection from constantly seeing sections blanked. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, an IP editor there has now made five reverts in the past few hours, most of them consisting of simple blanking: Note that this IP editor has made five reverts on this page over the past few hours: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]] :bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DavidWittas block evasion continuing

In reference to this past thread, the most-prolific IP resumed disrupting almost immediately upon expiration of a one-month block - nearly 200 edits already. Much of this is self-reverted à la one of the sockpuppet accounts, but some of it isn't (e.g [158] and [159]). Pinging @Girth Summit:, as you blocked the previous accounts. --Sable232 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of NPOV template to remove article’s neutral point of view

Blockhaj revived a three month old discussion to once again attempt to platform and validate the racist backlash against The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Consensus was already reached, nothing had changed since February, but keeps fighting to put the NPOV template on the page to seek a new consensus. They are not listening to what’s been said, and I feel their attempts at neutrality are to treat the racism as genuine good-faith criticism--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sry for late answer. The discussion in question was never properly finished and a proper consensus was never reached. It was honestly just a big controversial mess. Besides the discussion was reopened (albeit a bit vulgarly) recently with claims of gate-keeping. The claims of universal racism has no basis, the backlash has a clear connection to the changes done to the source material. Claiming universal racism for the backlash without sources is not neutral, thus the POW template. Even then, racist or not, the backlash is major and very relevant to the subject of the article and should be covered. Until the controversies is covered the article portrays the subject matter in a false or incomplete way, thus not being neutral.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got citations to

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so the RFC will establish consensus to include it. If you're just upset that Wikipedia articles aren't including a fan perspective, that's by design. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

NinjaRobotPirate – this is not about a fan perspective, its about a historical event relevant to the subject matter which has so far been blocked from being added due to what seems to be bias. The discussions of its inclusion has not been handled from a neutral point of view and thus the current article portrays the subject matter in an angled manner. Thus it is suitable to feature the POW template. CreecregofLife here instead argues this is not true and that consensus has been reached previously. He also pulls the racism card from nowhere instead of being constructive. Since a neutral conversation cannot be upheld we need a third-party admin to sort this out.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this historical event relevant to the subject matter? —El Millo (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Facu-el Millo the "historical event" (excuse the wording) is the dislike campaign against the show over the internet.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a historical event. Was that hyperbole or did you actually think that it was? —El Millo (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to "excuse the wording" of how you described its importance, then how are we supposed to take it as important? CreecregofLife (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blockhaj: Tagging an article to express displeasure is not a satisfactory procedure. Start a new section at article talk with an actionable proposal to improve the article or drop the matter. If necessary, start an

WP:RFC concerning the actionable proposal. It is not enough to feel that someone should add something—only actionable proposals concerning particular text are helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The POW template is meant to be constructive.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to get into

WP:IDHT territory. Two administrators have told you how to proceed with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Not the way you were using it CreecregofLife (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those confused about this discussion, it's about {{POV}} rather than {{POW}} that Blockhaj keeps referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t even notice the mistake until you pointed it out, let alone how repeated it was. Must be a fervor thing CreecregofLife (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long short descriptions

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

I'm not really sure what's going on here, but these two accounts seem to be edit warring to add short descriptions that are pretty long. Wikipedia:Short description and {{Short description}} suggest a 40 character limit. I reverted a few of the edits and tried communicating with one of the accounts, which was ignored (see User talk:HuiYongChin#Short descriptions). Yes, I know there are issues with the mobile app that can suppress notifications, but these accounts seem to be aware that their edits are contentious. In some cases, the newer account is restoring edits by the older account; for example: Special:Diff/1085821571 and Special:Diff/1088013318. In other cases, one account is edit warring without assistance; for example: Special:Diff/1088010013 and Special:Diff/1088093975. I'm not really sure what should be done about this. The accounts are named similarly enough that you could assume good faith and say it's a lost password. The edits themselves are not especially disruptive, but there are two uncommunicative accounts edit warring across multiple articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left them a warning and will block them if it continues. However I might be called away and miss problems for an hour or two. Whether or not they can see messages is unfortunate but not something we can control. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and do a totally non-surgical mass rollback. I doubt anyone thinks favourably of such not-short "short" descriptions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for revocation of TP

Will an admin please revoke TPA for User:I hate you~enwiki? NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Presumably the account was compromised? Maybe worth revoking email too? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally doubt that someone would go to the hassle of compromising an account that has been blocked for nearly sixteen years. It'd be impossible to verify whether a compromise has happened anyway, given that those were their first edits. If they begin abusing their email access, it can be revoked then, but I'm not going to take further action at the moment. (Noting for other patrollers that I have revoked talk page access). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of source supporting

WP:DOB at Evie Hudak

WP:DOB of this American politician, after final warning. I'm disengaging from the article page but would appreciate it if other folks would ensure this is cited, despite this editor's disruptive and repeated removal after final warnings for removing the source from the DOB, and edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Please ignore this. Her date of birth is already covered by reference #2. For some reason he wants the date of birth in the lead to be cited as well despite it being completely unnecessary as shown by popular articles like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Jon698 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also like to add this. All information before a reference must be cited in that reference so it is not "removing a direct citation" as he claims on the article's talk page.Jon698 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another point is that Ronald Reagan, which is a FA, does the same thing I did by having multiple sentence sourced by a reference. Specifically look at the reference #7in the page which is being used to source two sentences. It is a common and standard thing to do and it is ridiculous that a noticeboard complaint is being made over this. (I hope this will be my last edit to the page as I believe I have shown enough evidence, but I have dozens of other pages to show for those who wish.) Jon698 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Jon. The DOB already had an inline citation after the following sentence; it doesn't need a second citation right after the DOB, and it doesn't need to also be cited in the lead because it was cited in the body. Levivich 06:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this seems to be primarily asking for help with the article rather than to do take action against the editor, it really should be at
  WP:BLPN not here. But editors are missing the forest from the trees. Who cares whether it's cited in the lead or not? There is no way that votesmart complies with BLPDOB. I've therefore removed the DOB while keeping the year after further consideration. If an editor can find a source which complies with BLPDOB, they're welcome to add it back, but until then it stays out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Nil Einne definitely. Policy says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." I've just taken another BLP to BLPN for that reason. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkcell vandal targeting Canibus related articles

• 188.58.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 77.67.160.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 31.143.32.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 176.89.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 176.89.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 178.247.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

The list of IPs above have a recent history of vandalizing Canibus related articles. Please block them to stop this. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 10:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SUBJECT: Disruptive and suspicious behavior of a new WP user

Moved from

WP:AN

Hello, I'd like to report on the disruptive behavior of Jsfodness. The editor open a WP account only on April 26 and has shown a pattern of a very strange and disruptive behavior based on his/her revision history of edits:

• The user didn't do any substantial constructive editing
• Mostly tagging and attacking the pages with tags most of which were reverted by other editors
• Trying to delete many pages without even attempting to improve them for which the used received a notice on his/her talk page
• Retaliating against other editors after voting during the deletion discussions

• I believe this behavior doesn't show "good faith" and brings more harm to Wikipedia. --KhinMoTi (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]