Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106

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

As the title suggests, the first user was falsely accusing me of a

I don't think it's a good idea for the IP to be starting this thread, but for some context, see the first section at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you're the same as User:180.252.25.15. This thread is just forum shopping / trolling, since it is being delete reviewed, and there is fair evidence this is indeed a hoax. In fact, this kinda makes you look like an LTA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address 36.74.40.153 is flagging up for me as a proxy. Are you using a proxy? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• • You beat me to it. I just scanned and found it is a proxy. I didn't see that for the 180 address, which was down. That may explain why the geo is different than the LiliaMiller2002 socks (spain). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    The IP 36.74.42.66 (the OP at DRV) is also flagging as a proxy. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    I don't use

    G5, which indicates the page was created by a banned user. 36.74.40.153 (talk

    ) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Both IPs claim same junk link as a reference 180:Special:Diff/1099375119 vs current ip: Special:Diff/1102374706. Other similarities in first post to DR and TEA. Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  The very first edit this IP makes is to defend being a sock?

  WP:BOOMERANG incoming. RickinBaltimore (talk

  ) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Whenever we are tired of wasting our time, please delete and salt Draft:SM_Billiards which uses the same non-existent IGN links and archive.org confirms never existed as anything other than 404. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it doesn't excuse the fact that all three pages only belongs to Fanon Wiki. Oh well, sorry for being

  misrepresenting fanon pages as a real one, even if the page is not originated from main fanon wiki. 36.74.40.153 (talk

  ) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• This needs a range block for proxy, and that is getting a little over my head. The 180 needs to be monitored or blocked, it was just completely down after an intensive no ping scan, but it is obviously the same person, same geolocation, same edits. May need a range block as well. Very likely, the person is in spain, and bouncing through here, ie: LiliaMiller2002 sock. Will get that draft in a sec. EDIT: RickinB was showing off and beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Took care of that draft for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Can someone block those ranges please? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Can we please cut this troll off already? They still going including my talk page. Slywriter (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • • Yes please. The three ranges. I would attempt, but honestly, my IT skills are a bit rusty and I just don't want to screw it up. Perhaps checkuser can find us someone more competent with IP ranges. They are all related, and we need the IT skills more than connecting dots, which are already connected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
      • My range block-fu skills are not strong, otherwise I would. I'd love someone to explain it easily though so I could help in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

        From a purely technical perspective 36.74.40.0/21 and 180.252.16.0/20 look to be the ranges to consider. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

        • Figuring out netmasks in your head (except for the easy /8 /16 /24 corresponding to individual numbers in ipv4) never gets intuitive. Fortunately, you don't have to!
          Cryptic
          04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

      @Dennis Brown It's not clear what you want CU to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) @Dennis Brown and RoySmith: Probably to check if @Trade's accusations of me for being a sockpuppet/LTA of User:LiliaMiller2002 is false. 36.74.42.211 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a heads up that while y'all are yakking about range blocks, I've blocked
  WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please make him leave my talk page alone in this nonsense @Bbb23:--Trade (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've blocked 36.74.40.153 and 36.74.42.211 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@

vandalism because I told you that I'm not a sock of User:LiliaMiller2002. 36.74.42.211 (talk

) 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor is

should not be restoring removed talk page comments FrederalBacon (talk

) 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree with FrederalBacon that Wiki guidelines allows Editors to remove comments from their own talkpages, even through archiving is preferred. Chip3004 (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, are we gonna ignore the fact this is clearly an IP evading a block here? "I'm not a sock" is the same accusation against the original IP, which is now blocked. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did not want to bring up User:Yae4 to ANI here because I have been an involved editor and User:Yae4 assumes good faith in many things for the best of a well referenced encyclopedia, but occasionally their chronic behaviors, requests for administrative actions and maintenance tagging upsets and frustrates many (involved) editors. What finally prompted me to start this ANI case was an uninvolved editor 1's comment about User:Yae4's behaviors, about an article I have never edited. Below is an excerpt.

1. Special:Diff/1102095113/1102120554

Editor 1, addressing User:Yae4: Your behaviour is contrary to assume good faith and I consider it direct attack against editors. ​

2. Special:Diff/1095874907/1096398509

IP editor 2, suspected undisclosed connections (COI) and

WP:OUTING

. Not the most civil example of discussion in a dispute, but lays out problematic issues with User:Yae4's behaviors.

3. Special:Diff/975693856

Editor 3, but stale (August 2020). You're repeatedly making unsupported changes based on your incorrect interpretations and assumptions. You keep accusing others of doing what you are doing which is writing content not matching the sources. ​

4. Special:Diff/1096634558

Editor 4: I have zero intentions on "causing confusion" and suddenly jumping to such a conclusion doesn't really appear to be you trying to

WP:AGF and assume I'm somehow trying to cause issues. It would be nice if you could come at me with a less demeaning tone. ​

5. Special:Diff/1101770944

IP editor 5: Disputed, though I agree as an involved editor with this comment and the consensus exists. What on Earth? No, interpretations of statements that may or may not have been made by the project lead are not "basic facts" in the vein layed out by

WP:NPOV

on this point.

6. Special:Diff/1102580184

IP editor 5 commenting on User:Yae4 derailing discussions: I find it strange you're so holed up on this point. This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

7. Special:Diff/1101089878, Special:Diff/1101359618/1101443894

Editor 6 (SPA), while not the most civil, accuses of bias,

WP:CIR

.

8. Special:Diff/1094629670

IP editor 7: Dispute, but summarizing statements and sources given by User:Yae4: That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said.

Several administrative cases have been raised by User:Yae4 they've been in dispute with, but none with administrative action taken against the accused (the editors User:Yae4 has been in dispute with). These discussions also involve frustrated editors (some by nature), and greatly waste editors' (and administrators') time and attention away from improving articles.

• 9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive415#User:Pitchcurve reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )
• 10. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive456#User:84.250.14.116 reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )
• 11. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editor 84.250.14.116 behavior
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editors EndariV and "Jann ruhe" behavior, and Yae4
• 12. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/06#GrapheneOS, in response to (most likely) IP editor 7's edits. Result: User:Yae4 partially blocked for 1 week for edit-warring, no page protection increase.
• 13. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Resonantia/Archive
• 14. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strcat/Archive

I'm quite certain User:Yae4 is well versed and aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and should have been instructed several times how to behave, either on article talk namespaces or on their user talk page directly. I don't know what the most appropriate corrective action could be taken here to address User:Yae4 behavior.

As a side-mention, User:Yae4 has been previously banned from climate change topics in 2020, due to arbitration enforcement.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265#Yae4

Reasons for arbitration included, invalid tags, Addition of synthesis, disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views which I concern is still happening to-date in other article(s) (which I've been involved in). The latest example of the "talk page activism" may be found at Talk:GrapheneOS, focusing their talk page discussions and views on "not to use sources" in several unrelated discussions, despite editors disagreeing with the view (although I think some of his points warrant some due weight, but better sourcing), although there are also several good examples of editing, discussion and criticism from User:Yae4.

Please keep comments on-topic and civil here. If you have a complaint about my behavior, please discuss it in a new section.

Pinging @Yae4 for awareness of ANI, because they have requested me to not personally leave messages or {{subst:AN-notice}} on their talk page. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 response

This complaint is because I politely informed

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

they appeared to be routinely violating

Comment: Usually I would completely

WP:DYK. I miss the days of cooperative collaboration and polite disagreemnts with Newslinger. -- Yae4 (talk

) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

1. GreatDer. I thank them for their less promotional approach, but on balance, they do seem to ignore obvious rules, most recently on Murena disambiguation where they wish to include "Murena" phones before there is an article. Please read the full exchange; this summary is very one-sided. As I responded there,

WP:CYCLE. It is unfortunate the leaders of /e/ and associated shell companies have abused Wikipedia for many years: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea/Archive and continue by recruiting." -- Yae4 (talk

) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

2. 142.126.170.15: Another IP and likely sock, from Toronto, home of GrapheneOS. False accusations with zero basis should carry zero weight. Maybe their behavior deserves the sanctions, but Admins did not see it, or explain why not. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

3. Pitchcurve: example of editors who "know" the truth for sure, but don't bring sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

4. EndariV (see their comments below). I warned them for promotional edits and unhelpfully sticking Talk comments in a random place. They responded badly. Note: in Special:Diff/1099615786, you warned them for "Battlegrounding" changed to "Edit warring". -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

5. 98.97.32.199, and they said also 71.212.97.11 and 75.172.38.252, over short times, leading to confusion as they acknowledged at their Talk. I warned about

WP:COI. They responded badly. You said to them: I too was about to ask if you have undisclosed connections to GrapheneOS (you seem to have a lot of knowledge from involvement or a device with GrapheneOS installed for expressing statements and deeper knowledge of the subject on the talk page" -- Yae4 (talk

) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

6. Multiple IP user again: You again selectively quote to make it look worse. They also thanked me: "Thanks for catching the republishers, I've removed those sources."

6. There is an open, unresolved content dispute regarding what primary-source statements will be included, from GrapheneOS website, from GrapheneOS and Micay

WP:RSPTWITTER requirements. GrapheneOS promoters want to include all the one-sided claims of excellence, but ignore all the difficulties with other projects, and statements that other projects are not welcome to use GrapheneOS sources. -- Yae4 (talk

) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

7. Again, false accusations with zero basis from

WP:CIR: With all due respect, I've had a feeling English is not your first language, and is a potential source of our misunderstandings. -- Yae4 (talk

) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

8. "7" 84.250.14.116 Were you trying to make this look like an additional, independent complaint? This is also, and a good, typical example of how you deal with content discussions - vaguely, leaving difficulty understanding what you really favor. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

9. 2020 (Stale) -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

10. As discussed above, 84.250.14.116 continues reverting and otherwise undoing other editors with little restraint. Warning them was the immediate precursor to them coming here. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

11. Really one recent Incident. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

12. EndariV comment below also supports page protection for GrapheneOS (though not sure they understand what it means). -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

13. Two sockpuppets, Anonymous526 and Anonymous874 were blocked; one was unblocked after promising to stop puppeting. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

14. 2020 (Stale), but also had admission of

WP:COI by Anupritaisno1: Special:Diff/975735744, and Strcat (Micay alias) "abandoned" that account, noted by Admin. -- Yae4 (talk

) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

15. I try to learn from the bad experiences and improve my sourcing. Yes, GrapheneOS had some poor sources, and I have accepted blame and tried to correct the mistakes. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

84.250.14.116

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

• This IP became, in essence, a very active
  WP:SPA at GrapheneOS around the time Micay/GrapheneOS tweeted about Wikipedia.[3]

• Looking at their global activities,[4] they also edited several GrapheneOS wikidata properties, including their other communication channels - IRC and Matrix.[5][6] On the one hand, it could be random coincidence, and a suddenly very interested editor digging into details. On the other hand, it is consistent with responding to "a call" recruiting editors to GrapheneOS. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Canvassing? I am not a wiki-lawyer, but 84.250.14.116's several bcc's in this complaint look like
  WP:INAPPNOTE
  Inappropriate Canvassing - partisan, and not very transparent. I saw no other bcc's in this Noticeboard page; I did not search archives.

• Recent Admin interaction at User_talk:84.250.14.116 you be the judge: Special:Diff/1099480315/1101250029. Sorry in advance to Bbb23 for this transparent ping.

• Editing styles: Their approach of many, many sequential edits to
  WP:3RR
  , as other editors like me wait until they are finished to avoid edit conflicts. I understand my style of fewer, bigger (when needed) edits, causes some angst for some other editors.

-- Yae4 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Statements

EndariV

I've moved on from attempting to edit GrapheneOS well over two weeks ago purely because Yae4's behavior is so mentally tiring and there needs to be some admin intervention here.

If Yae4 is not going to get any restrictions, GrapheneOS needs to be semi-protected at minimum because their behavior has driven away plenty of other editors and they have an awfully obvious non-neutral POV including some blatantly obvious offenses such as Special:Diff/1102122284 (I don't even know what this has to do with the article and seems extremely cherrypicked just to make people scared of GrapheneOS, but I'm not wasting my energy on Yae4's draining behavior) with very twisted and editorialized wording which only paints the article a bad image to newcomers. And Yae4 is very revert-happy on neutral, informative things about the topic of GrapheneOS which even another IP editor pointed out in Special:Diff/1102574120 which was an absurd amount of content removed for no valid reason even when much effort was put in at Talk:GrapheneOS for a lot of that content. (P.S. I'm only replying here because Wikipedia notified me of a ping here...) EndariV (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 84.250.14.116 also supports removing most of the material, as we were trying to minimize primary sources and summarize secondary sources, not cherry-pick selected info' from sources. As said above, sometimes they are vague on what they support, so yes, you are correct, it does waste a lot of energy. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Greatder

Yae4 is a tough editor to deal with. I have interacted with the person in

• I was just informed of this complaint (
  WP:IDHT from them at that time. They may well be right on the content (I have no idea), but irrespectively of that, I found them to have been exhausting to deal with, so that was it for me (diff). Though, wtf is Yae4 reminds me of Fram net positive edit, net negative community contribution about, Greatder? El_C
  17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: You gave me 7 days block for a first block, which seemed heavy handed, after only cursory review. (aside from "climate change", which is a whole special topic of its own) -- Yae4 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yae4, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall that being something you raised in that AN3 report (link). But had you asked me about that then, I would have told you that this block duration was neither heavy handed nor exceptional in any way. Rather, that for first 3RR vio blocks, it's standard practice to issue a one week p-block, which leaves the user ample time to engage the talk page (and before p-block existed, it was 24 hours site-wide). Further, just like in that report, you again mention climate change, and just like in that report, my answer remains the same: that I neither remember what that was about, nor do I see how it's germane to any of this (special topic though it may be). El_C 03:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

On Fram, basically Yae is hard deal with between enormous amount of reverted edits(I acknowledge lot of it is CoI, IP edits. But lots of legitimate edits are reverted by them too.) and constant bludgeon and idht. Greatder (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? What a weird non-answer, Greatder. Are we expected to somehow guess whatever grievances you have against

cast aspersions upon him, but I don't like it, and I think it reflects poorly on you. El_C

06:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@El C I only knew about Fram from news articles. I know that people were upset about his behaviour even though he contributed edits that helped make articles better. Yae4 may have upgraded a lot of articles, but I take issue with the editors behaviour and thus the mension nothing special about fram. Greatder (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRAM saga has zero to do with any of this, even less so than Yae4's climate change or whatever. Also, I presume that, like myself, English isn't your native tongue, but you need to better proofread your comments as they are rather challenging to read through (i.e. broken English) and this is the English Wikipedia. El_C

16:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I suggested fram has anything to do with this.(he doesn't) I have striken that part. Greatder (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• GreatDer edits of my comments: I object because it reduced understanding IMO. There should have been no confusion given the usual talk page indentation, but I planned to highlight my inline comments and copy-paste 84.250.14.116 signatures for EEng or when/if an Admin asked, and I had time. In future, I suggest following the spirit of
  WP:INTERPOLATE, but I saw no objection by 84.250.14.116. That said, thanks for at least making the effort to number the comments. -- Yae4 (talk
  ) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It was a pain to relist, but if you can put the sign in the proper places you can relist.(Please don't revert not again) Greatder (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Canvassing too?: Do you think admins are not "watching" this page?
  WP:INAPPNOTE but kudos for at least being more transparent.[8][9][10][11] -- Yae4 (talk
  ) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, cause only one admin came and it was one of 3 I pinged :) I pinged people who have interacted with you of course. Greatder (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

84.250.14.116 (OP)

I agree with some sentiments about

Yae4, don't interlard your responses within others' posts, because it makes it impossible to tell who's saying what. Undo what you did and respond below the original post. EEng 00:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Or not. EEng 15:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going to relist it with numbers. Greatder (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@EEng How does it look? Greatder (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree that it is WP:NOTHERE behavior. He can be overly aggressive, but the contribs that I've looked at, he is talking about improving the articles, he is raising issues that arguably have merit. The way he is doing it can be abrasive, but I'm not sure it is uncivil. He would benefit from dialing back the intensity and verbosity. There are some issues, but I think you may be overstating it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis, I think he's making valid points. Arguments getting heated is to be expected when working in topics such as these, but it doesn't rise to the level of sanctionable incivility. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

    Calling people “jackass” and promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories after being sanctioned once isn’t

    WP:NOTHERE? Dronebogus (talk

    ) 09:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about NOTHERE, but the signal to noise ratio on their talk page contribs is heavy on the uncivil noise. I would prefer to see a civility warning than inaction here. If we think the user is worth keeping around, a warning serves to either prompt improvement or save time if they're brought here again soon for similar issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Molave Quinta, DoraExp

The first user above is repeatedly restoring unsourced/poorly sourced content while ignoring warnings for the same. They have restored such content six times in the past week, first twice at the page

This reminds of my previous report [23] and SPI [24]. Random users/IPs appearing out of nowhere and making the same disruption in religious topics. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DoraExp's contribution history screams out sleeper sock. nableezy - 15:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to be accused of jumping to conclusions, but yeah, as editors frequently note: if it quacks like a duck...

Iskandar323 (talk

) 18:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

On the article, an IP removed content about the subject being punished for a crime, making a

Hey @

SunilNevlaFan, I requested page protection after seeing this ping. Hey man im josh (talk

) 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@

✨

20:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That's obvious block evasion. IP range is blocked for 6 months, and page is semi-protected for another year. That should stop it for a little while, but the next protection should probably just be indefinite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In a number of articles about Mesopotamian deities, including Nergal (got locked until the end of August due to this activity), Hadad, Resheph, Ištaran, Nindara, Anat and more, a range of IPs (which might belong to a single user but I cannot verify this; the pattern of action is always similar, though) engage in disruptive editing, mostly involving attempts to force original research into them, though sometimes also rendering the infoboxes difficult to use by adding images through means other than the infobox template (see the Anat article earlier today for a recent example). The edits usually involve attempts at proving completely unrelated deities are identical (the fact it ultimately always boils down to the same two deities is what made me suspect this might be a single person at work), and typically twist sources already provided in the article to support the opposite of what they actually say (for a very recent and rathet blatant example, see the Anat article again, where they try to prove an article by a well established expert in the field, Jo Ann Hackett, explicitly advising researchers to avoid describing goddesses as interchangeable, actually justifies their own "research" relying on this very assumption). Often they attribute own thoughts to credible authors, the content of whose publications is easy to verify. They also randomly copy paste references from articles without adding the corresponding entry to the bibliography, and without crediting the article they copy pasted from appropriately. In some cases, this makes actual work which needs to be carried out (which there is a lot of, many articles about this topic are stubs or rely on fringe or outdated sources) incredibly difficult. Their additions typically have little to do with the section of the article they add their original research to, as well (for example in the Nergal article they added their ideas about cities of Marad and Kish, both in historical Babylonia, to a section discussing Nergal's relation to deities outside Mesopotamia altogether). Furthermore, these anonymous users (or user) appear to never use the talk page, and instead will randomly edit articles in inconsequential ways (ex. changing punctuation) to leave notes for other users in the edit summary. The notes are often rude but that's beside the point, my key issue is meritorical. I avoid bothering Wikipedia higher ups most of the time and simply contribute silently, but this problem has been ongoing since early summer and it is getting difficult to deal with. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@

subst:ANI notice}}.

The most recent IP editors to the Anat article were 93.35.64.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.44.2.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.35.64.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 93.36.40.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); the last of whom left several complaints about you at their talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄

) 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's the same person, I see they have been notified on one of their numerous talk pages by anoher user (well, you) already, thanks. Their complaint boils down to being unable to add unsourced or poorly sourced information (typically lifted from articles over a century old, or obtained by completely misinterpreting sources - see the Anat article, they quite literally try to make Hackett's article say the opposite of what it does) to articles into which others poured, at times, weeks of work. I should also note they appear to operate on the assumption I am male which is not true and I would prefer to not be labeled this way. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a new user who doesn't understand referencing rules or

WP:BRD as a start, and pointed them towards the article talk page. as Anat is now semi protected they will hopefully engage at the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 10:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

They more or less learned to cite but they still add original research to articles as of today. See Nindara. They found a century old snippet, added a google books source more or less properly (though without bothering to find the author or any such details, they are pointless after all), and then followed it up with made up explanation. Also note that there is no such a deity as "Išhanna" in any credible modern publication, nor is Ishara or Inanna connected to Nindara. Their editing continues to be disruptive. The fact that wikipedia articles about Mesopotamian deities were seldom particularly rigorous does not justify original research and presenting long outdated articles as facts. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said they did, but neither do I have any knowledge of the area. For reference they are at 93.36.42.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today. It might be useful to ask for semi protection on their other usual targets until they understand the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried with another of their targets and the results were mixed, I will try with Nindara though. Also: note the scope of the problem is likely goes well beyond what I am aware of (iirc you pointed out yesterday that they were active in the Baal article, for example), I do not "patrol" every ANE deity page contrary to what they seem to imagine, and the field has very few active editors to monitor what is happening with individual pages. Unsourced original research is incredibly common though few users engaging in it are this persistent. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Further update: on my talk page, under a host of new IPs, most recently 93.35.65.19, the user confirmed directly they see no issue with breaking Wikipedia rules on reliable sources and original research, and they appear to be motivated by a strange agenda tied to Siciliy. The lack of credibility of Albright specifically has been highlighted by users more familiar with Bible scholarship than I am for example on the page Talk:Anat and I do not believe the argument needs to be repeated here. It is abnundantly clear the user does not show willingness to learn and will continue to add unsourced, poorly sourced and outdated information to articles, ignore talk pages of them and attribute own views to other authors. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been more than One and half days now, User:Hongqilim crossed the whole limits and putting all the energy on personal attacks, harassment, vandalising my talk page. This has been gone to a whole different level now! Every 5 minutes after, I get a threat and I am totally frustrated now! See,

*Everytime I remove threats, User:Hongqilim post it again and again and again. It is now frustrating to see such User exists! Here is my talk page history [25]

*And still now, User:Hongqilim is posting these Special:Diff/1103067110, Special:Diff/1103066036, Special:Diff/1103065049

*Reverting my revert on my Talk page Special:Diff/1103065049, Special:Diff/1103068406

*Restoring removed threats

*Using loads of derogatory comments and loads of personal attacks on me.

*Commenting on different sections of Talk page which is completely different from this issue!

*

WP:ADMINSHOPPING

with using references by restoring previously removed sections of my talk page and rephrasing words and then teaming up with editors who had a different issue addressed on my talk page.

Following

All of the incident start with a revert of this edit Special:Diff/763184178, which I labelled as Vandalism because User:Hongqilim deliberately introduced wrong numbers which I calculated and the prev version stands out to be correct and the wrong version kept on adding in each year like a Chain reaction, I reverted it Special:Diff/1102841903 with an edit summary which is mandatory to put to explain the changes I have done, quoting "(reverted vandalism by User:Hongqilim, Special:Contributions/103.169.215.63)" I could use rv/v instead but the meaning remains the same.

I didn't put any warning template because this edit was almost 5 yrs back so I refrained form doing so! Now, it comes

Wikiproject Commonwealth to reverify pages, but I call out this edit as obvious vandalism on edit summary which is different from disruptive editing as it made more than enough blatant disruption to Project's purpose! But things doesn't stop here, User:Hongqilim

continues to put energy to make new section and continue harassments.

• Questioning whether my gender can face like a man. See here
• Showing experience criteria, See here "Are you living in a world of fantasy? Why are you fantasising yourself as an admin when you are just a less than a year User."

After all these,

I tried to talk to you, but the only words you said were insisting that I was wrong!--Hongqilim (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your reasons that I have vandalised the articles were valid.--Hongqilim (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my last resort, because I don't believe I have done such a thing.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you said randomly changing the numbers on 1998 Commonwealth Games was an act of vandalism?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Only after 5 years of editing on the article you said that I was vandalising the article? That was ridiculous!--Hongqilim (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed what I said earlier to the admins, which I also admit I was wrong, because I want to talk to you politely.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do it on purpose if I ever did, why accuse me? Wouldn't it be as simple as just replacing those numbers, if you think your figure was correct?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have been editing on Wikipedia for 7 years, but never had anyone like Sneha04 accused me of vandalising articles.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What did you mean by teaming up and meatpuppeting with Silverdragon3002? I don't remember I've ever did that.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember I have done any such thing as randomly changing numbers.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why was it you that found out my wrongdoing and not anyone else, if I ever did it?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Hongqilim: Can you stay off Sneha04's talk page please? @Sneha04: Can you use the undo option with a descriptive edit summary rather than a revert marked 'vandalism' for these kind of edits please? On the content issue, what do the sources say? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Removed it. Hongqilim (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Malcolmxl5, User:Hongqilim crossed the limit, used vulgar words, and for all those behaviour, there need to be serious action ! User:Hongqilim became soft after the report here on ANI, if I wouldn't take it to here, it could go worst!

  I already explained why I labelled it as vandalism and I know the difference between Vandalism and disruptive editing as per WP:PG, it was a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia as it continued mistake following to all time medal table each year on chain format. I told, I didn't put any warning template because this edit was almost 5 yrs back so I refrained from doing so! I just used edit summary.. and I don't derserve all these treats, personal attacks and harrassment for labelling out the wrong thing.

  On content issue, here is what source says, [26]

  Kenya had 7 Gold, 5 Silver and 4 bronze and New Zealand had 8 Gold, 6 Silver and 20 bronze in medal tally respectively!

  but what this edit says? Sneha04 ^💬 10:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  What vulgar words did I used?--Hongqilim (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I already tried to talk to you nicely. This is how you reply to me.--Hongqilim (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Vandalism is defined as action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. How come what I did was deliberate?--Hongqilim (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or degrading in any way. Was it by INTENTION? Hongqilim (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  How do you identify my intentions?--Hongqilim (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, Another rephrasing of words? where did I mentioned? "Public and Private Property?" Don't forget there is page history! Are you trying to get a favour here by rephrasing my words in your way? And it can be check anytime who said what? I have already mentioned what vulgar or rude words you have used! Vandalism on Commonwealth Games articles section tells all about.

  And yes you deliberately introduced wrong numbers, and you have no stand on that! And cherry picking words from Policies and doesn't make any sense and can't change the complete sense of Vandalism. I clarified before why it is labelled as Vandalism.

  But I even after I clarified it on reply on my talk page, you gone on a rapid harassment campaign! And you have continued so and violated a lots of User policies like

  WP:DRRC

  even after I put level-4 warning template on your talk page!

  And the vandalism still going on my talk page even after report at ANI.

  Now IT IS ENOUGH!!! Sneha04 ^💬 11:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not really--Hongqilim (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It was. Not now.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  What did you mean by rephrase?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now and then you always viewed me with suspicion don't you?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hongqilim seems very clueless about what they are and are not allowed to do on another user's talkpage. Immediately after Malcolmxl5' very polite request above to stay off Sneha04's page,[27] Hongqilim removed a big chunk of back-and-forth from the page[28] and noted here, below Malcolm's request, that they had done so. I have blocked them from Sneha04's talkpage, since polite requests aren't doing it. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC).

  I apologise for what I did on Sneha04's talk page.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was wrong.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pity it took a block to convince you of that. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC).

  I really was impulsive just now, as I was trying to make things clear of what was happenning to me, I mean seriously.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not really, these are the things I have say about the whole incident.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  From the beginning I really wanted to talk about it, seriously.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am trying to be honest all along.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you trying to tell me you are taking Sneha04's side?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mean really, is this how Wikipedia does things?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting nothing from harassment, instead of getting the blocked, you also leave a bunch of unhelpful comments on my talk page and then removed it, growth up son. --Aleenf1 11:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Now you are trying to get yourself involved, isn't it?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Your issue is being solved if I am not mistaken. I told you on my comments right? I admit it was a mistake, but you are trying to raise it again. Aren't you?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your problem now? I just hope you don't treat people with suspicion when editing sport articles in the future. If you continue doing that, I will report you as well in the future.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean I "grow up"? You should grow up too! Improve your English first before you talk to me. This forum is none of your business now.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to improve on your attitude towards people too!--Hongqilim (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful? Since when I am going to help you?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Now get out!--Hongqilim (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND, acting childish never help. --Aleenf1

12:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not childish. What makes you think I am?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You still don't want to give up, don't you?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you just give up already?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What else do you want from me? If there is nothing else, then get lost!--Hongqilim (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I just hope this dispute can be resolved without biased towards anyone else. That's all I want.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please give me the chance to speak for myself.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) "Chance to speak for [your]self"?? You are

bludgeoning this thread. You keep adding multiple, unnecessary replies over and over again and giving no chance for administrators to review. Singularity42 (talk

) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just explaining. What is it that matter to you?--Hongqilim (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hongqilim Please stop. In approximately five hours you have done over 40 replies to this thread. You are not letting anyone review or look at this issue. You need to stop replying to everything, take a little break, and let administrators review the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

ok--Hongqilim (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to understand why Sneha claimed that I vandalised the 1998 Commonwealth Games article 5 years ago? He even tagged my so-called past wrongdoing in one of his edit comments at India at the Commonwealth Games. What if I really had never intended to vandalise any articles on Wikipedia? Never had I been accused a vandal in all my 7 years here until now.--Hongqilim (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Break and Resolution

(Non-administrator comment) I've done my best to review the situation and here's what I think has occurred:

• User:Sneha04 reverted a 2017 edit by Hongqilim with an edit summary that it was vandalism. While there may or may not have been issues with the 2017 edit, it was probably jumping the gun by a long shot calling it vandalism.
• User:Hongqilim took issue with his edit being described as vandalism. However, they seem to have gone on quite a bit over this, making a large number of edits on various talk pages taking issue with the description, being uncivil, and restoring edits to a user talk page after they have been reverted.
• Sneha04 and Hongqilim got into it quite a bit over various talk pages, issuing warnings and/or threatening to go to admins, and ultimately landing in ANI. There's also been a bit of bludgeoning on this thread, more so by Hongqilim (which has been part of Hongqilim's issue on the other talk pages.

An administrator has already taken partial action by blocking Hongqilim from Sneha04's talk page. If both editors can abide by the following, I'm not sure further administrator involvement is needed and this thread could potentially be closed.

• Both editors should review
  WP:AGF
  .
• Sneha04 should familiarize themselves with
  WP:NOTVANDALISM
• Hongqilim should familiarize themselves with
  WP:BLANKING
  , and start a practice of only replying once in a thread and waiting for a response rather than replying many many times to a single point (which is a problematic pattern with the editor on many talk pages).

If both editors could confirm to committing to the above, I think admin involvement can be avoided. Just my two cents. Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Emotions and look back to the past, forcefully want to get the things stick, lay down the unnecessary comments, that's the problem and never help. --Aleenf1 01:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I told you to get lost already. Like I said, you view other users with suspicion. Look at what you said, is this how you treat the users here? I won't bother you if you treat all users nicely.--Hongqilim (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. This is not how

WP:CIVIL works. You are enjoined to treat all editors civilly whether or not they meet with your approval. If you do not understand this, and you cannot abide by it -- "I told you to get lost already" is very far from the mark, especially after already being warned -- then you are a poor fit for a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia. Ravenswing

04:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I really was rude just now, I apologise. I really don't know what should I say to these users, especially when their way of dealing with admins, reviewers and users seems confrontational to me.--Hongqilim (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have issues with Aleenf1 on sporting articles and like Sneha, Aleen always view me and the other users involved with suspicion. Could you please talk to him? I doubted if the rules in Wikipedia is like how Aleenf1 and Sneha04 interpret it to be.--Hongqilim (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Based off this diff I think it may be beyond a simple caution. The response to your caution of civility is to tell someone to get lost. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know how to talk to them. I mean what should I do now? If Wikipedia runs like how Aleenf1 and Sneha04 think it has always been, I doubted if they would have been called geniuses since long time ago. By then, they would have been Admins here for YEARS! This is what Aleenf1 does: citing things like

MOS:NOICONS, as if he knows how these rules really APPLIES when arguing with the users in his talk page!--Hongqilim (talk

) 03:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously

WP:NOTHERE --Aleenf1

04:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So this is how you interpret Wikipedia rules. Never have I seen in Wikipedia that there are users, I mean reviewers who could challenge other users or reviewers with Wikipedia rules like you! Look at how ridiculous you are! Is this how you dismiss other users or reviewers in Sports articles and talk pages?--Hongqilim (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your response shows a clear lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia works, and the idea that because these two editors are NOT admins, that their interpretations of the guidelines are less valid. This is not the case. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know if what I saw in them were wrong. But this is how I see them so far. I mean did Aleenf1 and Sneha04 actually talk to the admins about Wikipedia before?--Hongqilim (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hongqilim I don't see how is that relevant. Admins are editors just with additional tools, albeit given after a discussion by the commmunity to grant them the access. There are editors who are perfectly fine editing on Wikipedia without being admins for years, and may not want to be admins for one reason or another. And before casting asperasions like did Aleenf1 and Sneha04 actually talk to the admins about Wikipedia before, I urge that you check through their respective user contributions (a good starting point is through xtools) and you may see that they have interacted with various (former/current) admins at various times in their editing career here. – robertsky (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I might want to follow their directions unquestionably. I need some time to think about it. Maybe I will start off with apologising to Aleenf1, Sneha04 and the admins involved for my rude and uncivilised behaviour, for blanking and bludgeoning and harassment or something like that? I was wrong by telling Aleenf1 to get lost and I did so because I want the user to leave the topic as it is an affair between me and Sneha04. To tell the truth, I bludgeoned Aleenf1 talk page because the conflict between me and Sneha04 reminds me of what I thought about Aleenf1 and the other users on sporting articles.--Hongqilim (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully,

It is not just apologies, I have a lot to talk about it. I believe I have information that could assist with the investigation.--Hongqilim (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What an utter mess. Two editors fighting and shouting about edits to an article[29] which changes the medal tally from 670 to 672 (in 2017) and back (in 2022), when the official result[https://www.thecgf.com/results/games/3044 is 665 medals. If they didn't care so much about who was right or wrong, and what was vandalism or not, we could have had much less drama and a better article.

I recently just discover a way to resolve the conflict between me and the other user, which is through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I found it at the top of the noticeboard and I really wished I could resolve the conflict this way if I found it earlier, but my concern is: is there other way to do it and how do I know if the allegation of the other user against me was untrue?--Hongqilim (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you just drop the topic entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Reported the user on vandalism page, they told to report this here.The user Arushaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constantly vandalising on the page Chekavar, removing sourced content and replacing his own caste slur words like these : [30] , [31] , [32] to attack a particular caste. He has been engaged in edit war [33],[34],[35],[36],[37] even after many warning.From his contributions[38] it is evident that he is a Nair caste vandal to promote his caste and attack and vandalise other caste pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningalonnichpovuka (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) You are obliged to notify the reported party. I have done so for you. It's also good to sign your posts. Otherwise, this seems sanctionable to my non-mod eyes. Kleuske (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kleuske, noted. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

He was given a GS notice by Ponyo for

WP:GS/CASTE. It appears he hasn't edited since then. I don't know if any further action is required after the GS notice, until there are further issues, and even then, the fact that this is an area with General Sanctions in place would preclude the need for another ANI, simply a request for sanctions already in place. FrederalBacon (talk

) 21:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock of Nair Community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)