Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Hindu News

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

Yes please, multiple clear NLT violations. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

These are the IPs that have been used in the discussion: Special:Contributions/47.31.153.39 Special:Contributions/47.31.133.164 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/47.31.153.221. The last one is blocked but needs TPA pulled, too. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think perinant is a word, which is a shame because it should be. EEng 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the diff provided by Slatersteven, I blocked the IPs that were clearly identified as employees of the company due to legal threats. I don't think TPA is needed right now, though. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past. WMF Legal and WMF CEO is very well aware of considering the past LITIGATION between our organisations, DMCAs, Office Actions etc. Anyway, what we say here is previously publlshed by us on the ICANN website [5] and can be verified from WMF and also from WP:/LTA. The LTA will show we have unlimited supply of IP addresses, so blocking is a waste of both our times. We suggest you get WMF to impose a GLOBAL BAN on us if they dare. Have a nice day.

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

Noting that there also appears to be a threat of physical assault on WMF employees there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, but it's not like anything they say at [6] is crazy or anything. Stuff like ...

IAC says the present UDRP is grossly biased in favor of trademark holders. The domain name holders are subjected to RDNH akin to the Jews of Europe being eliminated in Auschwitz gas chambers. IAC demands a DENAZIFICATION of ICANN and the UDRP along with its NAZI collaborators like WIPO. It seems WIPO selects their panelists for their stupidity and for strict obedience to follow WIPO's self created gas chamber operation rules. It is no coincidence that WIPO is located in Switzerland where the bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored. IAC shall list out a few of WIPO's tricks to RDNH IAC's domain.

... make perfect sense to me. EEng 14:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't on my bingo card for today. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They make extensive use of legal threats directed at individual editors, the WMF, and the Wikimedia India chapter; they also engage in serious harassment, both on- and off-wiki. Whack-a-mole is so tedious, lets smash a few pumpkins instead. 47.31.148.206 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This may need escalation to a global ban, and maybe more as they are making direct theats, and an outright threat to sock. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP's references to IAC suggest a relation to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. I provided the tq to assist you. HINDUNEWS.STREAM is a property of the Hindustan Republican Army (check its Whois). IAC is an affiliate of HRA. The brand name IAC is owned by HRA. The Hindu Raksha Dal and Hindu Rashtra Dal are armed military wings of HRA to protect peaceful/defenceless Hindu religionists in India. Let's have a civilised conversation and ignore the trolls.47.31.162.201 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want a civilised discussion, stop making threats. And stop wp:socking wait till you block expires and come back without the attitude. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan Socialist Republican Association? So it very much will not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Coming off of your threat to have your stormtroopers assault WMF staff and Wikipedia users if WP doesn't do your bidding, I'd say that civilized discussion has up and left the building. Count me very much in favor of a range block wide enough to chop these IPs down. Ravenswing 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blaxstocatamazon: I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. City of Silver 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

While WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that the accusations made, with no evidence presented, are wholly inapproriate regardless of what the subject is, and because the edit itself implicates multiple CTops. IP editor: Anything said specifically to attempt to intimidate other editors into compliance is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are attempting to force article content). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Did anyone besides EEngs read through the link EEngs provided? The comments are pure insanity. It talks about assassination, for God's sake. For editing an encyclopedia? This goes beyond legal threats. I'm surprised that there was no response from ICANN as it was posted on their website. To me, it matters whether IAC is an actual organization or just the rantings of one crazy, zealous person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• This was an earlier warning about this group, Hindu Raksha Dal. Hard to know how much is real and how much is exaggeration to attempt to intimidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to tell earlier but got deleted. (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In mitigation, they're nice to bovines. EEng 13:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

How about buildings with windows? But yes, bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored there, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice storyline. But it's clear that you are related to this LTA in some way as noted before on your talkpage by me long ago [7]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The medical NGO I advice sometimes uses their assistance in certain places of India to operate safely, as also their networks in goverment when needed for advocacy or governmetal action. eg like 2024 Kolkata rape/murder. So something about their storyline is known. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You were essentially repeating same claims about filing a report with the national task force for doctor safety/Supreme court[8] as the IPs of hindu rashtra dal did on the talkpage of Kolkata rape incident. [9][10][11] Making legal threats on the same page also led to your block.[12] I have no doubts that you are related to them in some way, given how the first thing you did after getting unblocked is comment in this thread. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Col. Rajendra Singh Dalvi [1][2] who claims to be secular and liberal - The links you cited all points to the opposite of what you wrote, are you trolling? - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaaand I've redacted the new claims for the same reason I redacted the old, plus a dash of blatant BLP violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The only partially veiled threats of violence are among the most alarming things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit... Tavantius (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry -- it's really just these guys [13]. EEng 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll just mention this related ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SumoAvocado is seeking to intimidate a long term admin. The editor who came to my user talk page asked me not just to remove this discussion (and other discussions of Hindu News) but to revision delete all edits that made up the discussion. That account has been blocked. But I have the feeling that they will be back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am kind of wondering if it would be wise to advise the WMF of the threats of physical violence that have occurred within this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it would. It would also be a good idea to inform them that various people feel empowered to make such threats by the WMF's seeming willingness to roll over in the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation case. I'm sure we'll see much more of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is the any more than this we can actually do, just be vigilant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

These accounts should be globally locked, to make it clear that we don't tolerate any of this anywhere on Wikimedia. I submitted a few on m:Steward requests/Global. Yann (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No edits outside of the ENWP. Just re-report if those blocked accounts have activity on other projects. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ruthen Pagan

I cannot tell if this is a vandalism-only account, but some of the edits are purely disruptive while others look fine (at least not obvious vandalism). In this edit to Lithuanian–Bermontian War they replaced the flag to the gay pride one and in a subsequent edit they wrote: "According to some sources, Pavel Bermondt-Avalov was homosexual, and the flag of his army was rainbow, which corresponds to LGBT". I gave them a vandalism warning as a result. After this, in their edits to Pavlo Lapshyn, they changed "Ukrainian white supremacist terrorist" to "Russian white supremacist terroristwho citizen of Ukraine" in this edit. I also gave them an EE CT alert earlier. Mellk (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 4 days and have never posted to a User talk page or Talk page. Their only discussion edit was one post at the Teahouse so this discussion might have to occur without their participation. At this point, they seem like a typical inexperienced editor but they are editing in some Contentious areas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: They are still continuing to make unexplained and unsourced changes. For example here they added a unit to the infobox with "maybe" in parentheses although there is no mention of the unit in the article. Here they change figures without explanation. I am not sure if they speak English but most of their edits have been reverted for the same reasons. Mellk (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP refusing to WP:LISTEN and accusing others of political agendas

176.88.165.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively and tendentiously editing across multiple pages, arguing that those who disagree with them have political agendas or do not understand policy (or both!). Classic WP:IDHT.

At this talk page discussion, three users (myself, HistoryofIran, and Remsense) attempted to convey to this IP that unreliable sources do not fall under WP:RSOPINION. They refused to listen, and resorted to incivil comments, such as: "sabotaging for political agendas/to suppress opinions", "sabotaging for arbitrary reasons", and around four personal attacks in one diatribe. In the end, we got fed up with their refusal to understand WP:PAGs, and I advised others to move on from the merry-go-round of their WP:LISTEN behaviour.

The IP also started this discussion at RSN to argue the same point. First, ActivelyDisinterested responded, and three times answered whether RSOPINION was a good argument. This was of course not good enough for the IP: "You have not answered". ActivelyDisinterested grew uninterested(!) because of the IP' refusal to WP:LISTEN to others explaining WP:PAGs, and moved on. FactOrOpinion also participated in this discussion; I'd like to say that they and the IP found common ground, but that of course didn't happen. Instead, FactOrOpinion moved on, saying "I've read the relevant policy, and it seems I understand it better than you do...You've had several people tell you "no." At this point, this is a case of WP:LISTEN".

Then, the IP decided to edit war and was blocked for 31h (but not before filing two unfounded, retaliatory reports). Upon their block expiring today, they filed another EW report, once again alleging that everyone else's edits were political in intent. When Crazycomputers declined this report, the IP accused them of taking sides, and claimed that they were "corrupted" and that they, HoI, and myself, are "racists". Crazycomputers grew tired of their refusal to listen to policy, and moved on, saying "this clearly is a case of I didn't hear that".

Anyone else see a pattern here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, is it okay if I ping you if this behaviour resumes once the block expires? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You can, but post something at AN/I so other admins can jump in if I'm not there. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I only interacted with them once at the ANEW report and was completely unaware of the rest of this. Having only talked with them briefly, I have to say I'm not terribly surprised at the IDHT trend. After linking them to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD their conclusion was that these pages don't say what they plainly say. (Nor WP:ONUS neither WP:BRD has such policy. Otherwise, you could revert any edit and then that editor would have been expected to open discussion.) I strongly suspect that when this user comes back they will return to their previous behavior and simply refuse to listen to anyone about anything. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:136.38.220.43 repeated vandalism after block - requesting speedy block

diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7

User has just come off a block as per their talk page and are spamming "awesome" into various horse related articles(?) extremely quickly.

@Liz I am tagging you in hopes of a fast resolution as you seem to be the most active here... sorry if not appropriate this is my first time raising an AN/I request Artem...^Talk 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have just posted on my talk page Artem...^Talk 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism for 1 week. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for a fast response @Voorts Artem...^Talk 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy elsewhere on the project but luckily Voorts is just as active as I am! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75: Next time, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report users with a blatant need to get blocked. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see Liz has already told you about this below, happy editing! ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries @ExclusiveEditor I appreciate your help, thank you! Artem...^Talk 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Assistance in cleanup of Hamish Ross LTA puppet damage

NOTE: User intentionally not notified of this, as it appears to be an LTA. Please correct me if I'm wrong for not notifying.

I've blocked Seawolf35 HGAV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a very likely Hamish Ross puppet. As usual, lots of inappropriate warnings. This account has made a lot of edits and I could use some help in cleanup. If someone wants to jump in, please notify here. In the meantime, I'll start from the bottom of the list of edits and work up from there.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I just ran a mass-rollback on all of that account's edits. Any remaining edits are probably page creations that will need manual reverting. I'll start looking through those now. Home Lander (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also starting to wonder what exactly I'm looking at. This user is acting like Hamish Ross but has other edits that are not like that. Would like an experienced admin to review what is going on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of the mainspace edits were ok (reversion of actual vandalism); any that got caught by the mass-rollback I did have been self-reverted. Home Lander (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Had me worried that I misidentified the LTA. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not saying for certain this is Hamish Ross, but from the limited involvement I've had with them, it seems like it. Home Lander (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Home Lander, in the future, please wait for more confirmation before you mass rollback a user's edits. Mass rollback, like mass deletion, should only happen with obvious vandals and confirmed sockpuppets. Mass rollback is a drastic action to take against an editor. Have you reverted your reversions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: what makes you think this is Hamish Ross? This is the legitimate alt of a user with 8k+ edits. Just from a quick review of this account's reverts, they all look fine. —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser agrees this isn't Hamish. No comment on anything else at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Was opening and closing lots of edit requests, templating IP users, at a rapid rate. As a said above, I started to have some misgivings after going through the edits a second time, looking at the mix of good and bad actions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See, for example: User talk:Book millstones#November 2024.

However, does look like I was wrong. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reverse the block and/or invite the editor here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Y Unblocked. Came here to say the same thing as Ingenuity. SilverLocust 💬 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,SilverLocust, about the PAID warnings claimed inappropriate. That user created Uplifting Service, which was basically a sourced promo piece for a book, combined with their username, which led me to seek clarification from them, which I got. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seawolf35 HGAV, could you please discuss here with Rsjaffe about your edits that led to this block, and maybe sort out the problems that you two had? Fathoms Below (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s not anything to sort out. I’ll just flat out apologize and explain my, in retrospect, incorrect actions. I’m on phone, so this might take a few minutes. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I noted the automated edit filter report indicating a possible Hamish Ross puppet. I then looked at the editing pattern and saw some odd patterns. Closing others edit requests, rapid templating, often IP addresses, and some unusual activity (e.g. the double template noted above. I then blocked as I was concerned about continued disruption and came here for help. However, after I started delving deeper into the edits to start reverting them, I found that I agreed with more than I disagreed with. At that point, I came back here to say I may have made a mistake, and asked for experienced help.

Agsin, my sincere apologies for blocking based on an unusual pattern of editing rather than sreviewing each edit. I was over concerned with disruption, as Hamis Ross’s edits cause lots of puzzled and upset reactions. The though this might be that LTA led me to react faster than I normally do and is a lesson learned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the explanation and it is an understandable mistake. Best, Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You too. I hate messing up, and as an admin, the mess ups become very public. I appreciate your graciousness. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Now where can I get me one of those accidental block userboxes. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats?

Earl of Arundel was blocked by Bbb23 for one week for Edit warring at Talk:2024 United States presidential election based on a report at WP:AN3; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:RGW; using Wikipedia as a soapbox. In response, they have twice ([14][15]) posted about the need for Congressional action to stop Wikipedia from "censorship" of conservatives, and to hold organizations such as this one accountable for their actions.

I interpret this as a violation of WP:No legal threats, which states A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. Emphasis added. Bbb23 says they are on the fence about that. Do other admins think this constitutes an ongoing legal threat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Any sort of threat made to force a specific action should be regarded as a summarily-blockable offence. I'd up the block to indef; even if it isn't strictly-speaking a legal threat the intent is very obvious. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have made a third call for Congressional action, insisting it is not a legal threat, while accusing us of libel and lamenting the lack of laws to punish private organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation.[16] I guess they WP:IDHT when I tried to point out that the First Amendment applies to the government, not private entities. I would have indeffed them already but for being WP:INVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Typically I won't care either way since we would usually laugh it off that it would be hard to find a way to force it through the Congress, but this is a concern, so yes. – robertsky (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think the best course of action would be to apply WP:TNT to Talk:2024 United States presidential election and just blank the whole page. Ooooof. WP:NOTFORUM is just gone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that interest in the talk page has increased in line with the election. I doubt it will fully quiet down until February, but we will see. I will say that even attempting to archive one off-topic and then duplicative discussion didn't work out, given this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 revoked TPA. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch as a legal threat. But it's a giant bucket of WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:EW, and all sorts of related goodies. And I'm slightly sympathetic philosophically in at least one regard (I think we're too lax about MSNBC), but if this editor doesn't realize after eight years that a project based on consensus requires accepting that you may be on the losing side of an argument, I'm not sure how you go from there. Given that the editor has made useful contributions elsewhere before, why not consider simply a topic ban on WP:CT/AP? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is the support an editor like this can receive from a few editors who agree with them ideologically. Here, they have gotten themselves into trouble through edit warring and legal threats and other editors are thanking them for their good work on the project. I think it can have the effect of making the blocked editor less willing to admit to their mistakes so it really does them no favors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by sockpuppet User:MaralagoPawn

• Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 blocked for 1 month for block evasion by Special:Contributions/Meellk (still blocked) on 9 October 2024 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Possible_block_evasion_by_83.6.206.183
• Special:Contributions/MaralagoPawn created on 9 November 2024, immediately proceeds to continue same pattern of edits on Poland -- Svito3 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm negating these accusations. This is my first account on Wikipedia. I have run over sources and what's in them on several pages already, such as Angela Merkel. The sources listed for Poland being a semi-presidential system simply don't match up, except for 1. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  How would new Wikipedia user use same arguments that WP:Consensus is a math equasion/vote and doesn't involve consensus building?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1249401895

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poland&diff=prev&oldid=1257166072

  Not to mention specifically describing one source as outdated and pushing Encyklopedia PWN source e.g. "Polish source". It's unlikely. Svito3 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this user does look like yet another sockpuppet of Urabura/Galehautt. All accounts ran by this person sooner or later come to the Poland article and get into an edit war over some detail in it. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Um? I just went over the source listed on the Polish wikipedia (where the system of the country is described as parliamentary) and, as any reasonable editor, checked out the discussion on Talk. And after revising the sources placed on the page, I found all of them except for 1 to be faulty. I had to remove them. Is anything abnormal? I'm trying to stick to the rules as a new user. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

2409:40E3:103D:8274:D9A9:8FA1:ED7F:C05E

Requesting evaluation of 2409:40E3:0:0:0:0:0:0/32's contributions, and recommending a NOTHERE block, upping Black Kite's page block for disruptive editing to indefinite, based on their sketchy contribution history, high revert percentage, and PA's attacking Ocaasi in edit summaries (diff) and on their Talk page in response to an admin warning (here; diff). Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

IP addresses should not be indeffed. Requesting indef IP block is not worth it as IP addresses are subject to change. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week and revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive behavior from Lgnxz

For some context on the situation, on November 9, User:Lgnxz began a large-scale removal of the term "J-31" from the Shenyang J-35 article on the grounds that it was a "misnomer" (see this group of 14 edits). While this assessment is partially true in the case of the prototype, which is officially designated FC-31 and was sometimes called "J-31" by western media, this does not extend to at least one enlarged variant of the aircraft promoted by manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and the Chinese state media known as the "J-31B". I confronted Lgnxz about this misconception on November 10, but Lgnxz repeatedly insisted that the video released by the aircraft's manufacturer, promoted by the Chinese media, and heavily analyzed by western media was somehow a mistake, citing nothing but WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and the fallacious argument that the revelation of the J-35 designation disproves the existence of the enlarged J-31B which had already been confirmed by Chinese state media ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). I repeatedly asked for reliable sources confirming that the J-31B and J-35 were the same variant, but only got more WP:OR and claims that that the sources were already in the article (I was unable to find any such sources in the article). On top of that, Lgnxz dropped several personal attacks, first calling me an "avid wikipedia fundamentalist" and then saying that I was "clearly unwell". After I warned them about the second attack, they responded with this confusing, dare I say trolling comment.

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

ZLEA, this is clearly primarily a content dispute. Has this been discussed on the article talk page? Can you provide a link to any discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz This is primarily about the attacks and the disruptive behavior, not the dispute itself. I included details about the dispute as it gives context to the actual problem. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them" And what would be your reason for accusing me? A baseless prejudice of course, given that despite the clear personal difference between us, I didn't do any petty vandalism or edit war in the J-35 page with you or any other people on any page, nor do I want to 'troll' you by extending this overextended topic any longer; I've said what I need to say about the J-31B. It just seems very ironic how you're accusing me for being 'disruptive' given how you try to accuse me without evidence that I use different IP to 'stealth edit' the J-31B section from the J-35, and with further attempt to escalate the matter to an Admin. Lgnxz (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you didn't want an escalation, you should have stopped your personal attacks at the final warning, or better yet never made any attacks to begin with. I also made no accusations of sockpuppetry, I only asked if you were the IP based on a reasonable suspicion (not "baseless prejudice") since the IP performed an edit similar to one you made only a few days ago. It wouldn't have been the first time I caught such sockpuppetry, especially after the original account had supposedly dropped the subject. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Editing while logged out can be considered sockpuppetry if used inappropriately. If it was you, please don't do it again."

That sounds pretty accusatory to me. But please, keep bringing this up personally to me and about me instead of having a talk page in the J-35 page on the J-31B as mentioned by the admin. That'll truly show how disruptive and escalatory I am instead of vice versa, right? Lgnxz (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to have such a discussion on the article's talk page, but not with someone who throws around personal attacks as freely as you have these last few days. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Lgnxz and ZLEA, if everyone can agree on no personal attacks or passive aggressive comments, can this discussion move to the article talk page? I've found when two editors are in a dispute like this, it really helps to get other knowledgeable editors to participate in the discussion so it's not a "me vs. you" situation. How about we try to move forward? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can agree to that. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And you, Lgnxz? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure Lgnxz (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Then go forth and discuss! With civility. And I hope not to see a return trip to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

96.83.255.53

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

---

... probably needs a short block for various personal attacks. C F A 💬 02:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Trump nominees

There is lots of edit warring (much of it unintentional) at the pages of the recent Trump nominees (Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, etc.) as to how to designate them: "nominee", prospective nominee", "presumptive, nominee", etc. I would love a centralized discussion with guidance from someone who knows the correct terminology, but I don't know where to start such a discussion. I checked relevant pages from four years ago, but the same sort of uncertainty existed then, too. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment at one of the village pump pages, with incoming links from all affected pages. Also, feel free to request protection on pages experiencing repeat edit warring. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

IP User disruptive behaviour

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

---

2600:4040:4522:2100:6C29:7904:43C:A130 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP user is repeatedly engaging in edit wars and vandalizing articles, disrupting content quality and accuracy.

---DelphiLore (talk)

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

Possible Gaming of Permissions Ethiopian Epic

@Ethiopian Epic Only has 13 edits[24] all made in under an hour. 11 were to Government of Japan and the last two were made to Samurai, a semi-protected article. The changes made at Samurai are controversial, and were the subject of a Talk Page discussion. The dispute was also evidence in the Yasuke ArbCom case. The changes to the Samurai article are largely reverting to an earlier version, but done manually. It is unlikely that a new user would rewrite the article using earlier phrasing. It also removed cited material. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't look like autoconfirmed gaming, it just looks like editing. I don't see anything in the recent arbcom case that applies here, either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Really? 11 minor edits and then a big edit on a protected article? I find these two especially suspicious:[25][26]

I just mentioned the ArbCom case for context, full disclosure etc. The T-ban on Yasuke, broadly construed, doesn't affect Samurai, right? Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban could, depending on the exact edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that a textbook example of "broadly construed" would be that a ban on Yasuke extends to the samurai article as well; otherwise "broadly construed" has no meaning. It means "give the topic the widest possible berth." EEng 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing about race in this, it just looks like a content dispute. Secretlondon (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Race had little to do with the Yasuke ArbCom case. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots: can you provide a link to the revision of the article you are saying that they have largely reverted to? I tend to agree that that would be an odd coincidence, but without a version to compare against it's hard to evaluate (and I don't particularly want to start guessing). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here is a change I made on 5. October[27]. It was changed by a different editor again in October [28] Ethiopian Epic then restored the version from before 5. October, as well as restored the disputed line about retainers. Since I had added some of the stuff that existed before 5. October, this did restore some of my edits as well as revert other contributions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the version that I think is closest to the last version by EE[29] Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused: that literally is the last version by EE. Which version from the past are to compare it against? If giving a link is a problem, just give us a date/time stamp that you are saying they are effectively reverting to. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, diff 37 is supposed to be a side by side comparison between the last version by EE and the version at 05:17, 11 September 2024 [30] Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a look around, and I can see what you're getting at - they have pretty much undone a number of edits that you and others have done at that page. However - 'gaming' autoconfirmed isn't really a thing - the bar for getting an autoconfirmed account is intentionally very low, it's really just there to make it slightly more burdensome for high-speed vandals to be able to target their preferred pages. That article is semi-protected (indefinitely, which is unusual) because of high volumes of anonymous vandalism. Whatever this is, it isn't obvious vandalism. I don't think it's a particularly big deal - they reverted some changes, you have reverted their revert - let's see what happens next. They might not return, or they might engage on the talk page - it's a bit early to be talking about blocking anyone. If you think it's a sock of another account (blocked or otherwise), head over to SPI and put some meat on the bones of your suspicions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for looking at the situation and explaining things. At this point, I think I will wait and see what happens. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Girth Summit here. Confirmed status is no big deal - it is easy to get the "proper" way, so gaming 10 edits doesn't mean much. If you have suspicions about this editor, or they are being disruptive, then you should pursue other avenues. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Bigamy?

According to Liz Lloyd's BLP, she married Ed Miliband in 2002. His bio has him married to someone else. Someone may like to fix this. I would, but I've forgotten how. Scott Mac 18:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI isn't really the place for this - WP:BLPN would be a better place. It's no secret that Lloyd and Miliband dated early in their careers, but they were not married. It looks like this assertion started life as two separate assertions (e.g. in this version from 2017), and presumably some helpful but careless copyeditor merged conflated the two facts. I have removed the assertion that she used to be partners with Miliband - it's true, but it's trivia. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ezra Ben Yosef

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

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

• @Hellenyck: In order for your complaint to be considered, you have to present user's edits which you say are misinformation, preferably in the form of diffs, with comments. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• From my side, I reviewed the page Judeo-Ge'ez, supposedly a dialect of Ethiopian Jews, and can confirm that all references cited by Ezra Ben Yosef are invalid: they do not speak about Judeo-Ge'ez. It is plausible that Jews in Ethiopia spoke their dialect, cf. Judeo-Tajik etc., but, e.g., the book The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History (btw, which lists Judeo-Tajik) says that they spoke Ge'ez, rather than Judeo-Ge'ez. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I myself will be busy this weekend and will therefore not be able to comment on the topic until Sunday evening at the earliest.

  For anyone deeply familiar with the subject, it's relatively straightforward to identify what the user is attempting here, where he is being dishonest, where he is fabricating sources, and where he is simply incorrect. I would, therefore, appreciate if another user with expertise in the field could review his contributions.

  However, I would like to make a few basic comments here.

  Fundamentally, the Beta Israel are an indigenous group that distanced themselves from Orthodoxy amidst turbulent historical events, rejecting the New Testament and adopting certain Old Testament customs (see Kaplan, Steven: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia. From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York 1992). Following their "defection," Christians labeled them with the term Ayhud—a term that indeed derives from yehudim but, in the Ethiopian context, means "heretic" (or "god-killer") and was applied to various heretical Christian groups (Kaplan, Steven: Ayhud, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, I, A–C, Wiesbaden 2003, pp. 408–10). This term was rarely, if ever, used to refer to Jews, given that there were no actual Jews in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Christians viewed the Beta Israel as heretics, not as Jews, and likewise, the Beta Israel saw themselves not as Jews but as "Hebrews," a title associated with the royal dynasty. The original beliefs of the Beta Israel had no relation to Judaism.

  Later, from the 16th century onward, Europeans began arriving in Ethiopia, observing the customs of the Beta Israel. Due to superficial similarities (though there are substantial differences between the original faith of the Beta Israel and Judaism) and the Ethiopian designation Ayhud, these visitors mistakenly associated the Beta Israel with Jews. In the early 20th century, Beta Israel customs, especially due to the efforts of Faitlovitch, became increasingly aligned with Jewish practices, leading eventually to their migration to Israel. From the 1980s onward, scholarship—through careful analysis of sources—began to emphasize that nothing in the Beta Israel's original religion was inherently Jewish. This viewpoint is now the consensus in academic circles. Notably, however, this academic perspective has had little to no impact on political decisions. Discussions surrounding the "authentic Judaism of Ethiopians" are framed in fundamentally different terms from those in academic discourse.

  The user denies these facts and suggests (through genetic studies that are completely unsuitable for this question) that the Beta Israel represent a branch of ancient Judaism. Furthermore, he constructs a linguistic connection between “Judaeo-Geez” and Hebrew and a historical connection between Beta Israel and Judaism, deliberately misinterpreting and repurposing evidence in order to achieve his desired result. In doing so, he completely ignores the scientific consensus. Hellenyck (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, wall-of-text glazes eyes and makes this harder to understand. Multiple users have warned this user about problems. Please post three or four diffs that show those problems and explain in one or two sentences for each why those diffs represent a problem. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  This diff appears problematic. The citation to Chiaroni says Hammer, which could be just an innocent mistake. However, the study, appears to have been misrepresented. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" isn't in the study, so the conclusion about Ethiopian Jews appears to have been mis-stated. Andre🚐 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I know rsjaffe is asking for differences, but the issues here are more about content not matching the cited materials from the article's inception. These problems date to the article's creation. Would this be more appropriately handled at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Essentially this is an WP:OR problem involving content... although repeatedly misrepresenting sources (ie citing material that doesn't verify the text) might be seen as a behavioral issue that needs addressing an ANI.

What is required is reading the cited sources and comparing them to the text in the article. In fact checking, the Kaplan source is used repeatedly and it never mentions "Judeo-Ge'ez" anywhere. It does address dialect in Beta Israel literature begins on page 103, but the author calls it an "Agaw dialect" (which we already cover as a people group and at Agaw languages). Kaplan as a whole argues that the Beta Israel texts were transcribed not from Jewish sources but Christian one, which is pretty antithetical to the point of view in this article which is working hard to connect the Beta Israel texts directly to Jewish literature. Clearly, there is no way anyone who has read the Kaplan article could come to the conclusions being made in the Judeo-Ge'ez article. They are clearly false citations that have existed from moment of article creation.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, it sounds like, at the very least, a rewrite is called for if these mistakes have existed since the article's creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I think you are fundamentally missing the point that the term "Judeo-Ge'ez" itself is made up. None of the sources use that term. As a concept it is completely original, and there are no sources to support a re-write. It's rightly at WP:AFD. The question is what to do with the editor who created an article on a term not mentioned in sources being cited who essentially falsified references and was purposefully deceptive. For example, the Hebrew language that supposedly means Judeo-Ge'ez given in the article ( יהודי אתיופי ) is actually the Hebrew name for Ethiopian Jew. The whole thing is an odd original treatise not supported by anything that has ever been published. One could even call it WP:HOAX but I think the author is more of a sincere original thinker with a pet WP:FRINGE theory that has never been published.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "at the very least". You can also send this to AFD if you believe it is not fixable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As 4meter4 said, the article is already at AfD (roughly 14 hours before your comment). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, you are missing the point of the complaint of Hellenyck: a single OR article would be not a big deal, but this person apparently disrupts other articles with their theories. --Altenmann >talk 17:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that. His edit history will need to be checked as he appears to have edited heavily in articles related to both Ethiopia and Jewish history. Given the false referencing in one article, we may need to investigate whether this has occurred in other locations as well. If he's introduced false referencing elsewhere, I would support either a topic ban or a block. That said, I don't know if that has happened as I personally have not looked. It might just be the one incident/article.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Show us the diffs. We are not experts in this field yet we may have to take significant action. Give us several examples of disruption, point to the online reference the user relied on and explain why the edit is a problem. I am inclined to believe you, but to take significant action requires confirmation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• One thing is for sure: the editor was replacing Ge'ez with Judeo-Ge'ez (reverted everywhere already), e.g., [31] or [32].
• He uploaded and used an image with false caption, see edit summary [33] and I verified and placed correct data taken from reliable source.
• removed valid info claiming it is "misleading"
• Here he inserted a texh (maybe even valid) in front of a footnote, which I am 100% sure he did not read (BTW this footnote of suspicious provenance was added by an anon).
• False edit summary "Fixed minor grammatical errors" - no.

--Altenmann >talk 21:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for a temporary block for disruptive editing. I have blocked from article space for 31 hours and invited the editor here to discuss. Other administrators feel free to extend this block if I have been too conservative or otherwise alter/remove it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Factoring into this decision was the observation that 1/3rd of the user's edits have been reverted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Judeo-Ge'ez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But politically/socially they are seen as Jews and have emigrated to Israel. Is there literature that discusses this? Is there more than Kaplan talking about this? Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Our article on Beta Israel certainly doesn't contest their Jewishness. Secretlondon (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews are Jewish, I don't think that is really up for dispute, I think it seems like Ezra Ben Yosef was trying to bolster their claims of ancient origins from Yemenite Jews which I don't think is the currently accepted historical consensus. Nobody should be disputing that Ethiopian Jews are Jews Andre🚐 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, they were officially recognized as Jewish after much debate in the 1970s, but Jewish identity and Jewish origin in this case are two different things. It's a very complex topic, and not directly related to the Judeo-Ge'ez topic (which is made up thing) which has to do with language and literature of the Beta Israel people. There's a really wonderful article here which goes into the ins and outs of the Beta Israel people and the shrowded mystery of their origins here; but this source is also very clear that most scholars believe they are of the Agaw people (see page 402). There's also the JSTOR article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24674566 which states " Academic research into the liturgical music of the Beta Israel suggests that they formed as a group under the influence of Ethiopian Christian monasticism in the fourteenth." In general the prevailing scholarly position is they developed from Christian groups at the time. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

See here, Ezra removed something [34] that appears to be accurate, adding someting unsourced here [35], and here changing the conclusions of the article to support the idea that Ethiopian Jews were Middle Eastern[36] and here [37] Andre🚐 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a very contentious area to edit in because the outside scholarly work contradicts the Beta Israel community's oral history and myths about their origins. So fundamentally, the scholarly academic work may upset people from within the community because the historicity of the oral tradition is not accepted in the academic literature as being true. This is one reason why we see so much edit warring in that article. FYI, I am not a contributor to that page and don't plan on being because its likely to be a place of conflict, and with continuinng WP:POV and WP:OR issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Aksum

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

Long-term problem at Robert Hale Merriman

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

A block against an IP range is usually enacted as a temporary solution. I think a short-term range block is in order while making a request for page protection. Peaceray (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A /64 IPv6 range is usually equivalent to a single IPv4 address and can be treated as such. The first half of the IPv6 address usually identifies the device, while the second half often varies randomly. So blocking a single /64, unlike a wider range block that could affect multiple users, would be preferable to having the whole page be protected. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern about page protection as a solution is that this person is clearly incredibly persistent and I can't imagine anything except very long term page protection being effective against them, and that seems like an outcome it would be preferable to avoid.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing long-term partial blocks against IP ranges used in the past - am I misremembering? It seems like the risk involved is quite low; the chances of another, uninvolved user having an address in the same /64 and wanting to edit that one specific article are small enough. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

. I am new to adminship (about ten days ago) & have never done a range block or a for a specific article. Perhaps someone at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks can help Peaceray (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant to congratulate you on your election!

Anyway, @Drmies has just protected the page for a month. I've added it to my watchlist too. If they return after expiration of the protection, I suppose this can be revisited. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here: just block. Peaceray, if you go to the IP's talk page and click "block", it automatically gives you the option to block the /64. Then again--the ONLY time someone ever said anything about the IP's edits was when Casiopea said "unsourced". User:AntiDionysius, I appreciate what you are doing here, but I don't see where you explained your reverts, or left a talk page message, or talked to them--clearly they are interested in the topic and don't know how we operate, so maybe you can explain that. So, Peaceray, hold off on blocking, if you don't mind--I semi-protected, but we're here at ANI like we're dealing with some terrorist vandal, which we are not. User:Chaotic Enby, judging from the history there's no other IPs really interested in editing the article, so I semi-protected, which has the same effect for us, but doesn't kick the IP editor in the shins. One of you, PLEASE talk to the IP editor, on their most recent talk page, and explain, without a template, what they are doing wrong and how they could do it right. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't leave them a talk page message this time was because it seemed like such messages had proved ineffective for whatever reason. I have left messages before, and then watched them make more such edits from the exact same IP a few minutes later. But I'll try again - as you say, without a template this time. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Try on the article talk page too, just in case. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Good plan, thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partially blocked (from Robert Hale Merriman). I have partially blocked 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 from editing Robert Hale Merriman for a period of six months. Peaceray (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! @Drmies, sorry for implying that blocking the IP editor was necessarily the better choice. My comment really had the technical aspect in mind (of one /64 range being equivalent to a single user/device, except in very rare technical cases), and I didn't think to check whether the IP user had been warned before. Happy to see that AntiDionysius left a message since!

The issue with IPv6 is that, since a user's potential addresses are distributed along a /64 range, there isn't a single talk page on which we can have a consistent conversation with them. I believe the idea of /64 talkpages has been considered by MediaWiki, but I'm not sure how far in development this is for now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Chaotic Enby, I hear you--I usually just pick the most recent one, knowing that it might not always do the trick. But if someone has been doing it for so long, I kind of would have expected a number of talk pages with notes/warnings. Preferably notes since it seems that the editor was trying to contribute. Perhaps the block notice will prompt them into looking at a talk page; I'll try to click on the range a few times in the next few days just to see if they said something. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Good news – temporary accounts will be coming to the English Wikipedia soon(ish), and one of their effects will be that anonymous editors using IPv6 connections have much stabler identities (including, but not limited to, their talkpages). jlwoodwa (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, Donald Trump, and WP:OWN

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

---

At least three times, user GoodDay has made edits like this one, commanding editors to refrain from adding a word they don't like. There is no supporting consensus, but this will not be clear to other editors who see the hidden comment. Thus, GoodDay is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior at this article.

For GoodDay's position on this issue, see User talk:GoodDay#Unauthorized hidden comment and User_talk:Mandruss#Trump 2. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, Mandruss has ownership issues at Talk:Donald Trump. That being said, I'm disappointed he's taken a dispute between only us, to this level :( GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried other avenues first. I reverted you with edit summary explanation. Twice. I posted at your talk page. Nothing worked. What, exactly, did you want me to do to avoid disappointing you? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So GoodDay has now self-reverted.[38] And the only thing that changed in the interim was an ANI complaint. Apparently they knew they didn't stand a chance of prevailing here. That is simply bad faith editing and warrants a sanction in itself in my opinion. We simply can't keep misbehaving until a complaint is filed. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will you stop with the personal attacks, please. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA is not a suicide pact. It ain't PA if it's warranted, and any editor with 16 years should know that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted (4:54) before your report was posted (5:01) here. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you got me there. I was too busy filing this complaint to watch the article. Given the history of the issue and your UTP response, I think my error was understandable. Done, this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no malice towards you. But, if it'll lower the heat between us? I'll volunteer to stay away from the Donald Trump page & talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't harbor grudges; every day is a fresh start. The "heat" ends when the issue ends. No need to back away from the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already removed the page from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced edits of Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari

I am reporting User:Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari for continuous addition of unreferenced materials.[39][40][41][42][43][44] The editor has been told many times directly in their talk page, to include reference in their edits. They don't communicate in their talk page and rarely explain their edits through the edit summary. Another editor have discussed this issue in their talkpage as well.[45]Hotwiki (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Upd Edit - project sock?

Upd Edit (talk · contribs)

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

This diff Sounds like something an admin with very specific skills may be able to deal with. @Smartse do you think you'd be able to help out? A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What leads you to the conclusion that this is a sock, rather than, for example, someone who has been editing unregistered but has decided to register in order to comment on that talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a possibility that an unregistered editor registering an account to comment on the page, but the likelihood would be low in my opinion. The open letter is publicised mainly to registered editors via the the watchlist notice. The talk page isn't restricted in any manner so anyone can comment, even when unregistered. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As an IP editor I can say I saw this the same day it was created, it was very attention grabbing with all the people editing, no watchlist needed. I see now that Phil Bridger announced the open letter at the village pump too, afterwards. That is to say, this is not some obscure thing (not that you claimed it was).

Here is a question: if this is the sock of someone, IP or not, would it not be a valid reason for creating a single sock(privacy)? – 2804:F1...F5:391A (::/32) (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This strikes me as a valid type of sock account? -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If it is unregistered editor trying to shield their IP addrees, sure. But if it is a registered editor? How so? WP:PROJSOCK only allow project sock accounts if the discussion affects their account directly. The issue, the court case, at hand affects only three editors. It may not be beneficial of them to participate in the discussions in any manner as we already have seen that the plaintiff's lawyers had tried to bring in last minute arguments such one of the three editors participating in the open letter and paint everyone here in unfavourable light. Any claims that this case will affect one's privacy of others in the future is WP:CRYSTAL as it is open ended at the moment. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that responding to an open letter on a sensitive political subject would be a legit sock in the spirit of "privacy" (and maybe "security"), and the fact that the discussion has hundreds of participants means that the negative effects of a project sock are vastly reduced. I'd change my position on that if they were obviously tag-teaming with a regular account, or if they were trying to dominate the discussion in some way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing whose sock they are, there is not much to be done here unless a Checkuser drops by and decides they should investigate. But I don't see this editor's 5 edits as being disruptive and warranting a block. They might be an SPA and just be interested in this court case but but being an SPA doesn't violate any policies. Many of our current editors started off as SPAs and grew to be interested in other subjects as their skills improved.

But there is another case brought to ANI (see below) about suspicions of editors participating in this discussion about this WMF mess and what POV they might be pushing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This may not be “dominating the conversation” but it does have some features in common. (On the other hand they haven’t edited in more than a day, so this is probably moot.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks:

• 14 July 2022: No dear, your answer is clear evidence you are ideologically biased. Who is Cambridge? Are they the final say on religious subjects? So a source is considered reliable le by you if it’s published by Oxford or Harvard. I see. Hmm, most of Wikipedia is garbage then, according to your flawed logic. Anyway, you probabablu don’t speak Turkish. Chances are you’re just a pro-Persian person living in the West. No I’m not personally attacking you. I’m just saying things as they are. Your profile is enough to show how partial you are.

• 11 November 2024 If some pro-Iranians want to push the agenda...

• 12 November 2024 But one of those I referred to is definitely you and your actions. Please apply the same standards to your own editing and stop being biased and your POV editing. Thank you. (the first line refers to the previous attack a day earlier)

Keeps disregarding (WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS) the plethora of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS based on it [46] regarding the ethnicity of al-Biruni, resorting to edit warring [47] and openly disregarding it in the articles talk page [48]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE

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

This edit to the user talk of User:Zubehamoreha, another seeming SPA, may indicate some form of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it. Looking at the report about Upd_Edit above and the ban of Djano Chained (another SPA), this seems to be a wider issue. Cortador (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Gonna suggest we also check out User:Dzień dobrry who has a similar editing pattern. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pov pushing on the tigris page

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

---

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

Okay I was going to give them a warning but the moment I posted this they were blocked. Should I still post the ANI noticeboard template? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk page abuse: User:Krpzy

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

---

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

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

Personal attacks, edit war in contentious topic

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

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

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

Edit war: adds contested content [49] , pushes it with edit war [50] claiming "vandalism", again [51] , adds [52] WP:TASS, removes [53] no relevance tag. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocked indefinitely from BRICS, as this seems to be the main locus of the disruptive editing. However, looking back through their contributions, I'm not sure if this will be enough to stop the disruption. I'm considering this a normal admin block, though it does seem to arguably fall under CTOP/EE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, you might consider extending this partial block to Talk:BRICS as this is where personal attacks are happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what happens when he next edits. If anyone sees the need to broaden the block before then, I don't mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for losing my temper yesterday, I think I was frustrated that nobody was willing to hear my point of view, nonetheless I admit now that I went out of line with some of my responses and I deeply regret that. I just want to appeal directly to you to reverse the block as I am deeply passionate about the BRICS project and I believe I can contribute a lot to the article for years to come.

Best wishes CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to express my deepest of apologies, I regret losing my composure in that manner. CmsrNgubane (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

After taking time to think about this clearly, I've decided to withdraw my request to be unblocked because I know that I will end up in another battle because I do not cower to any man , I fight for what I believe in and do so feverishly and it's a trait of mine that I am proud of, therefore I will not change my personality for anonymous people on Wikipedia and if this statement that I've just made earns me a total block then I am prepared for that, infact I've just realised that I've been wasting precious time guarding articles for what reason actually?, it's been good being part of the community for awhile but it's now time for me dedicate my free time on endeavours that actually pay money. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also noting edit-warring at Cape independence with bizarre summaries. Borgenland (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning sir, I just want to take this time to clarify the contentions on the Cape independence article, I believe that it is correct to classify the group as a separatist organisation since it seeks to break apart from South Africa, furthermore I would like to inequivacally stress that none of my edits are made with the intentions of disrupting, I make the edits based on approved citations, I have recently developed a passion for editing and I want to help contribute to making Wikipedia better for the reader.

Kind regards CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything I said is true and factual, you are just soft as hell, yes this is a personal attack, now go cry to Mommy and Daddy and tell them to block me completely. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Request granted. Sitewide indef block. —C.Fred (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

POV pusher at Naidu

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

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

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

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oddly specific targeted vandalism

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

---

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

It's just a sock, exposing their IP addresses that will inevitably be blocked for longer and longer periods. Not very clever, and WP:RBI works.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, short of an edit filter I don't think that's possible, but I did restore the protection that expired earlier today. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Would one of you two be kind enough to mark this as closed? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Lovemuhcko and IDHT

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

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

• Moving an unfinished stubby draft to mainspace: [54]
• Removing stub tags from obvious stubs despite warnings from two other users: Special:Diff/1251968647
• Adding unsourced content (to BLPs) despite a warning in March: Special:Diff/1251250442, Special:Diff/1251250325, Special:Diff/1251250172
• WP:NOTBROKEN violations despite a previous warning at User_talk:Dekimasu#Any_a_favor?: Discussion here

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

So I not edits for in the future and I will limit these edits anymore and please not been blocked or banned to edits and still continue to editing will to limited from now. Lovemuhcko (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lovemuhcko: I don't think promising to restrict your edits is enough here. The general issue here is that you've repeatedly ignored people's concerns about your editing, so there's a substantial chance that it might later spill over to other areas on this project, leaving us with more work to clean up afterwards. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember this editor. My first encounter to them was on April 2023 when they removed the Stub tag on Madoka Asahina article without an explanation. I restored the tag, explaining that the article was currently assessed as Stub, and warned them on their talk page. Since then, I restored the Stub tags that they removed from other articles, to the point I got exhausted and just removed those articles from my watchlist or just started ignoring them even if I know what they did was wrong. It seems that their editing involving Stub tag removal doesn't stop, with recent being this week. I hope this ANI will get the editor's attention: they can expand the Stub articles instead before removing the template. Centcom08 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-archive update

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

I have blocked them from mainspace due to the resumption of the same problematic editing despite a promise above. I also question whether they have the English language skills to edit here, but they're welcome to use draftspace. Star Mississippi 01:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, a stub is an article too short and incomplete to provide more than rudimentary information. When I look at The Case Book of Arne, I see an article that should be assessed as "Start" rather than "Stub". Take a look at the article, which has nine sentences of prose and six references. Then, take a look at how Wikipedia:Content assessment describes stubs and start articles, and explain to me how this article is a stub? I see far more than "rudimentary information". So, why is is removing the stub tag being held against this editor? Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That one is more borderline than Murder Mystery of the Dead which is a clearly wrong de-tagging IMO. Personally I'd have left Arne as a stub but I also don't think this editor has the experience to be assessing article quality. That said, zero objection to you or any other editor lifting the block if you think it was wrong @Cullen328. I'm about to log off so please don't wait on me for any action. Star Mississippi 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I do not object to the block from mainspace because the editor's contributions clearly have some significant competence issues. What I've done is upgrade The Case Book of Arne to start. This editor can demonstrate competence through well-referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Some competence issues are intractable. On the other hand, "English language skills" is an area where serious effort, study and ongoing day-to-day experience can accomplish wonders, although it takes time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

156.146.153.231

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

---

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

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

BrocadeRiverPoems behavioral issues (not assuming good faith, dogpiling, hounding, possible sockpuppetry, off-wiki coordination, and not being civil)

I am making this report because I recently found this post (found by searching up the username of the user in question), where the suspicious editing patterns of this user was brought up in a similarly contentious article with another user complaining about the exact same patterns of hostility and dogpiling: [55]. This report was made through the lens of someone involved in the article 15.ai, so if anyone who was involved in the maintenance of the article Yasuke could chime in, that would be very much appreciated.

The user User:BrocadeRiverPoems has demonstrated a clear pattern of editing that prioritizes ideological alignment over adherence to Wikipedia's core policies, including neutrality, reliable sourcing, and civility. In multiple contentious discussions, such as those surrounding the articles on Yasuke and 15.ai, has engaged in aggressive and accusatory behavior that discourages meaningful collaboration among editors. Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives ([56], [57], [58]). These actions have not only disrupted the editing process but have also led to a hostile environment on talk pages, alienating other contributors and stalling productive dialogue ("I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1). Anyone who dares to disagree with this user are met with harsh accusations and hounding, and despite being a relatively new user to Wikipedia themselves, the user is happy to scrutinize the editing patterns of anyone who isn't active on Wikipedia 24/7 ("With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1; "It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article." from the same page, "Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article"). (see: the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems). Hypocritcally, they consistently spend a great deal of time and effort dissecting the verbiage of every editor that disagrees with them down to every individual word, but are also happy to offer circumstantial evidence to support their argument, such as accusations of off-wiki coordination ("The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing", "Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus.", "Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the WP:DRN and the continued edit warring by User:RocketKnightX and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from User:HackerKnownAs, I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard." from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. and "See Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai. [...] This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination." despite my insistence that I have never participated in off-wiki manipulation). For example, they stress that they have "pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them", and yet were happy to make edits that unashamedly violate WP:YESPOV like [59], which I had to edit (before my edit was eventually reverted).

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

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

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

• WP:GOODFAITH
  • "You've crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns"
  • Made accusations about single-purpose editing without evidence
  • Claimed "The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing"
• WP:CIVIL
  • Made hostile and condescending responses that led one user to say "I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back"
  • Created an environment on multiple discussion pages where editors felt their contributions were viewed with suspicion just because they took breaks or haven't contributed to Wikipedia as much as the editor in question
• WP:HOUND
  • Followed and criticized specific editors' break patterns: "With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
  • Continuously questioned others' editing motives
• WP:DEADLINE
  • Criticized editors for taking breaks: "you made few edits after you assessed the article and then you left for 6 months"
  • Used breaks as evidence of suspicious behavior: "returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
  • Questioned legitimacy of contributions based on activity patterns
• WP:NPOV
  • Made edits that blatantly violate WP:NPOV (e.g. [60])
  • Misrepresented sources to support preferred narratives
• WP:RS
  • Deleted sources they personally deemed unreliable
  • Misrepresented reliable sources to support their preferred narratives
  • Deleted a number of sources used in the article (not all sources must be perfectly neutral; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which says "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") and then claimed that the subject did not meet notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Possible WP:SOCK and WP:COI manipulations
  • Allegations of off-wiki coordination with IP users (via Discord or elsewhere)
  • Allegations of sockpuppeting on an unrelated article but with similar behavioral complaints raised by other editors (see [61]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

This, of course, completely disregards the fact that most editors agree with BrocadeRiverPoems's edits. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You know @HackerKnownAs, you haven't participated I can't find any traces of you in this RFC, which took place at the bottom of the page. This RFC has been up since 4th of November , and the discussion whether 15.ai should be in the past tense is since 7th of November. At least discuss there before reverting other editors consensus. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Even @BrocadeRiverPoems has discussed there, why haven't you done that too? 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad

this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this)

i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors Rin6626 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that an RFC was up, let alone know what an RFC was. I apologize for my ignorance, but I've largely stayed away from Wikipedia politics in favor of making edits that I believe contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@HackerKnownAs: Firstly, you are required to notify the user you are reporting on their talk page, using the template provided at the top of this page.

Secondly, can you explain this edit where you appear to further an edit war in order to make a point?

Thirdly, can you explain why Wikipediocracy is being used as "evidence", both here and in the previous diff? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I have never made a report like this before, so I was not aware of the first point. I will make that notification after I finish writing this.

For the second point, I was under the assumption that being bold and making changes yourself was encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:BOLD. Again, I am sorry if this was seen as furthering an edit war; that was not my intention. My intention was to revert the article back to a stable point before all of the edit warring occurred.

For the third point, I am not using it as evidence, but as supplemental material. I was not aware of this forum before I found this discussion, and I found it interesting and relevant that the exact same complaints that I and various other editors have had about this user were restated in this forum. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the talk page and the edit history of 15.ai, you are repeatedly restoring your preferred version against the consensus of multiple other editors, who have complained about this behaviour on the talk page.[62][63]

I'll be blunt; this looks like a retaliatory, frivolous report full of WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd suggest to the admins that this be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1257688676#15.ai behavioral issues., filed by BRP, may be relevant background to this filing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HackerKnownAs, each one of your many accusations has to be accompanied by a "diff" or edit illustrating an example of the behavior you are identifying or this report could be seen as casting aspersions. Evidence, not just suspicions, have to be present in a report. Also, if you have evidence of misbehavior in an off-Wikipedia platform, please send it to the Arbitration Committee, there are privacy concerns that make it inappropriate to be shared here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the underlying merits of this either way, I am pretty sure that everything here just had a whole ArbCom case about it. As such I'd support quick closing this as moot: if you go through a whole case where you were a party without sanctions, I don't think that bringing that same person to ANI right after for the same behavior is appropriate. Loki (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I might be a little sensitive to the whole "retaliatory-report-based-on-old-evidence" thing right now, but I'd think that alone should merit a BOOMERANG here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, the editor who posted in the AN was advised to bring it over to AN/I. I apologize if this was not appropriate – I was not aware. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm the admin that stated that ANI was a more appropriate noticeboard for this level of specific complaints than the discussion that was started at AN which I closed. But, as I said, you need to start adding diffs soon to support your accusations or this could backfire on you. It's a risk of posting a complaint on a noticeboard that all parties are under scrutiny. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added my diffs. I apologize again for not following the appropriate formatting for this report. I will continue to edit to bring some more context. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HackerKnownAs, I feel like I'm throwing a lot of advice at you tonight but it is really distracting to editors who are approaching this case with fresh eyes to have so much content BOLDED. Using Bold or Italics can be used for highlighting an individual word but having half of your comments in Bold font will just turn readers off. It's a little overwhelming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I attempted to follow the same formatting style as in the last AN report, where the relevant quotes were formatted differently from the original text. Is there an easier way to do this? HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Consider {{tq|q=y|Quote goes here...}} which renders as Quote goes here... EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. To User:GhostOfDanGurney and User:Liz, I’m one of the many editors that BrocadeRiverPoems has accused of single-purpose editing by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago. I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies. Even if no decision is made here, I hope that my statement brings some context to the situation and explains that this isn’t just User:HackerKnownAs posting out of retaliation, it’s all of us affected by it behind it. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, SirGallantThe4th, you have to provide diffs to support these claims of bad conduct. Other editors have to be able to review them to see if there is a basis to your allegations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1

I suggest you read this please. This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history. Why would a Wikipedean already taking a break due to personal life issues want to come back after reading that their contributions are meaningless because they weren’t making enough edits? It’s especially weird when someone goes through my history to try and prove my motives were evil. Bullying doesn’t have to be via name calling, it can be as simple as being cast as suspicious just because someone with more power or influence says so. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

SirGallantThe4th, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1 was chock-ful of strange accusations about off-wiki collusions, I think if an admin had seen this, they would have shut this down before it went so far. First, I think you are mistaken that this editor has power and influence as they are a relatively new editor although they do have all of the terminology down. I'd just advise you that if someone is making unfounded allegations against you, don't feel like you have to spend your time on the project defending yourself. Explaining yourself can be useful in discussions like this one on ANI but this page was a review of an article, not an examination on the motives of the editors who worked on it and this discussion went completely off-the-rails.

I will say though that it is very unusual for an editor with your level of experience to be doing GA reviews. How did you find yourself in this area of the project? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad

this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this)

i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors because theyre taking advantage of new editors who are new to wiki to make them look like idiots Rin6626 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of being told I am bludgeoning again, the accusation that I am running a specifically transgender Discord that is dedicated to taking down MLP on Wikipedia is plainly absurd. I mean, if it pleases the jury I can record a video of me going through my Discord, you'll find no such existence of me owning this alleged Discord. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask, very politely, how you even came upon this ANI Discussion about me before even I did? It was posted 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC) and you joined the conversation at 05:51, 16 November 2024. You were not, to my understanding mentioned directly [64] in the complaint, nor were you notified on your TalkPage about it (you very well should have been, but then, so should I have been, and some other individuals as well). I'm just confused by it, I suppose, since you stated that I had made you feel so bullied that you logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. Given that you surely had 0 knowledge that there was going to be an ANI complaint posted about me, and you've never participated at ANI before, I'm just unsure as to how you go from never logging in again to happening upon an ANI discussion about me? Of course, you're totally free to complain about whatever conduct of mine you feel is egregious, I fully encourage and support it. As I said in my post below, I apologize if you feel that I bullied you, and I struck through the relevant comments. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I will state that the reporting user is currently using WPO in an edit dif [65] for a reversion. Moreover, the WPO evidence that is being used against me is essentially a duplicate of an attack page which was G10'd [66] which pretty grossly misrepresents my activity on Yasuke at large. It's so much so of a misrepresentation of my activity that I didn't even warrant a Finding of Facts on the ARBCOM case at Yasuke Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Proposed_decision. My apologies for the length of my reply, but there is a lot of ground to cover in the accusations.

Their accusations against me here include a statement Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives. The offending sources I removed were mostly deemed unreliable by consensus, were WP:SPS, or were misrepresented. For instance, the wording of the article currently reads Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,", however, reading the sources they don't actually say that. Lauren Morton actually says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating[67] and, as I mentioned, doesn't mention 15.Ai specifically in terms of "fascinating", while Natalie Clayton says It's all very fascinating to read about[68].

Andrew Ng's The Batch was declared an unreliable source when 15.ai was still a draft. Gwern describes itself as someone's personal website they use to remind themselves of stuff. I'm hardly the only editor that has found issues with the content of 15.ai.

where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems

By myself, an others, historically, even[69]. And, as indicated by your edit history [70] as I linked in the Admin Noticeboard. The only reason I even brought this to the Admin Noticeboard initially is because of the blatant WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus was reached about issues regarding the article and you continue to ignore said consensus and make reverts to your preferred version. In our exchange, I reverted your reversion of an edit that had been developed as a DRN solution to a content dispute [71][72] and after your second revert in that exchange, I stopped. As for the accusations leveraged against me elsewhere that I'm on some discord trying to get 15.ai deleted, there's no reality or merit to that statement. I came upon 15.ai browsing random articles, saw that an edit war was transpiring, and started noticing peculiarities about the article and made note of them and fixed what I could about the article. Notably, BrocadeRiverPoems is an identity that I use exclusively for Wikipedia and nothing regarding my Discord or my life outside of Wikipedia can be linked to my editing of Wikipedia. The most I will reveal about my real life is that I had a roommate who attended the same MA Program as I, and my former roommate would edit on Wikipedia. Said information is fully disclosed on my profile. Said roommate moved out, and I haven't really spoken to them since. As I have freely admitted elsewhere, I was an IP Editor for a time, and I made the account so I could make a post regarding the historical usage of the word "sayamaki" when editors were translating the mention of Yasuke being given a sayamaki.

by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago

Scouring through your edit history is a bit of an exaggeration. When I was looking at the Good Article Assessment after I found several problems with the article, I looked at the edit history of the Good Article Review process and discovered that you had only assessed one other article, and that that article had been deleted for copyvio. It isn't scouring your edit history to see and note that you assessed the article, that you left, and that you were specifically canvassed back[73] for the AfD and returned to vote keep at the AfD. All of that is on a singular page of edit history.

It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies.

I am unaware that I have such sway over anyone?

It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others

Again, these are false accusations that originate from a user who got blocked after harassing myself and others[74].

As for my claims that the AfD was interfered with by SPA Vote Stuffing, it plainly was. [75][76][77][78]. These individuals had limited activity on Wikipedia usually only editing 15.ai or 15.ai's competitors before voting Keep in the AfD and then disappearing from the site. One account is even named "Throwaway" indicating it was created for the specific purpose of voting in the AfD. Considering your participation in an AfD to delete NovelAI[79] which was put up for deletion by an account similarly named [80], and NovelAI is a competitor to 15.ai in that, to my understanding, NovelAI offered TTS features, it looks as if accounts were created solely to influence the 15.ai vote.

This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history.

The page is chock full of me saying your editing contribution was suspicious because of the irregularities surrounding the article, and that regardless of that, the article should have never been assessed "Good" because it had numerous glaring issues including a source that is considered generally unreliable WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. As you can see in my initial statement, where I pointed out the unaddressed COI concern from 2022 that had been purged by a drive-by IP Editor and never properly addressed as one of many reasons the article should not have been assessed as good. My statements regarding your activity were to highlight that you were an inexperienced reviewer whose only other Good Article assessment was an article that was deleted because of copyvio, which is not a good sign for the other article. I likewise noted that your activity ceased and resumed only to defend 15.ai, as Good Article reviewers are supposed to be uninvolved in the articles which they assess. Your later statement It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 only further solidfied my belief that you shouldn't have reviewed the article, because you seem to have an interest in the topic.

If you feel that I have hounded or bullied you, than I apologize and I'll go strike it out right now.

As for statements that I make baseless claims about off-site manipulation of the article, Anonymous uses at PPP discuss fabricating sources [81]. When the article was published, it was announced on the PPP according to the archived discussion that was used as a literal source in the article [82]. Likewise, [83] and [84]. When the image was deleted from the Wikimedia commons for copyvio, they re-uploaded it as non-freeuse which I put up for deletion because it didn't fulfill the non-free use policy requirements [85]. The Level of the Pony Preservation Project's involvement in 15.ai is apparently to such an extent that HackerKnownAs created an entire redirect to 15.ai of Pony Preservation Project[86] [87]. Here are people claiming the Wikipedia article is someone's reputation [88] Here is a post directing people to use 15.ai for the history of the PPP [89]. Here is a post discussing even creating the article [90], dated 07 Mar 2020, with the article being created 05 Apr 2020 [91].

As for the argument that I only push things that support myself, the user who seems vigilant about vandalism did not bat an eyelash in regard to the deletion by an IP Address that other than apparently engaging in BLP Vandalism, only removed a talk page discussion about their potential COI editing [92][93] shortly before the article was nominated for GA Status.

As for my edits being "unconstructive", I removed a Medium link that was members only, and a Gwern link that directly referenced the Wikipedia article [94], I removed a cited tweet that didn't say what it was being cited for as well as a Gwern link that didn't mention the PPP or 15.ai directly [95]. Here, I removed Andrew Ng who was being misrepresented and Tyler Crowen's blog because the blog is a WP:SPS and Tyler Crown is an economist, not an expert in AI. [96], I later found out that Andrew Ng was declared an unreliable source when the article was a draft, but was re-added after the draft was released as an erroneously flagged minor edit [97] and I removed WeGotThisCovered and more Andrew Ng [98]. Beyond those edits, I reverted HackerKnownAs when he undid the compromise that was decided at DRN which HackerKnownAs reverted and I did not further contest. My next edit on the main article was undoing a user randomly changing the dates of maintenance tags and in the article [99]. At the Good Article Reassessment when I pointed out flaws in the reviews, I was asked Are you able to fix these issues by AirshipJungleman29 and so I did [100]. I also corrected the contents of the Japanese sources since they seemed to be google translated and were wrong [101]. Roughly translated, the Japanese actually states Some users used 15.ai to show a demonstration of their use of GLaDOS for an assistant by using the tool “VoiceAttack,” which enables a PC to be controlled by voice. At this point, it looks like Siri-esque sorcery. Perhaps in the future, through the power of such services, there may be an assistant that can assist the user with a voice of his/her choice!, which is not quite the same as saying "15.ai is like magic". Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [102] that these defamatory accusations harvested from an attack page that was recreated on WPO are continuing to be thrown around. Noting, again, that the original content of this so-called evidence used was originally created by a user who engaged in a campaign of harassment against myself and other editors, see User:Nocomputersintexas and [103], specifically, the removed edits from the IP Editor specifically mention 4chan and directing individuals from 4chan to harass me. This coming from User:RocketKnightX who, during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [104][105]. Given the user's edit warring at 15.ai [106][107][108][109][110] and their continuing edit warring [111] [112] I suggest at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX.

Likewise, as per above, I also propose WP:BOOMERANG on User:HackerKnownAs, and would request the defamatory edit history of [113] be expunged for WP:NPA. User:HackerKnownAs continues to ignore TalkPage consensus [114][115]. Looking at their edit information, they rarely engage in talkpages and have extensively edited 4chan and 15.ai in particular, which I feel qualifies them as a WP:SPA [116] defined in WP:SPA as A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose and that single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Their statements about 15.ai show a strong personal opinion about 15.ai to the point of accusing a nomination at AfD as being badfaith [117] and stating themself that was extremely crucial in the development of TTS voice generation[118]. However, despite a few editors making this claim, no substantial reliable source has ever been provided to support this claim. Furthermore, User:HackerKnownAs has made numerous wide-sweeping reversions in the name of fighting vandalism that indiscriminately remove constructive edits to return to the article to a state they personally approve of [119][120][121].

They also misrepresented the sources[122] that they added to the reception section in what amounts to editorlization. As noted above, neither of the articles cited actually refer to 15.ai itself as fascinating. The user also shows WP:OWNERBEHAVIOR in their constant reversion to their preferred version and their refusal to participate in consensus building [123] or Dispute Resolution despite being invited to participate after their reversions [124]. As you can see here [125] they have not participated in any meaningful discussion on 15.ai's talkpage since 2022. During the AfD for the article, HackerKnownAs WP:CANVASSED User:SirGallantThe4th, and SirGallant alone, to the AfD [126] at the time this occurred, the AfD was leaning toward Delete. Afterward, the SPA's I noted above also arrive and vote Keep. I do not know what manner of sanction would be appropriate, but I do feel that edit summary should be expunged if possible.

I also would like to propose that User:Rin6626 is blatantly WP:NOTHERE, as all they have done is make baseless accusations [127][128][129] since creating their account. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you

i wish i had more screenshots on me before i left that server but youre mistaken if youre gonna get away with this

to the admins of this place brocade is known for gaslighting people on discord, theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it) Rin6626 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you

I can assure you this is completely untrue.

theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it)

The amount of times I've been reprimanded sorta runs afoul this theory that I know everything about the Wikipedia rules, does it not? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I've blocked Rin6626 as WP:NOTHERE. The allegations above, mixed with the fact that this is a brand new account, tells me at best they are here to stir up trouble, and at worst this is a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So is no one going to address the suspicious circumstances surrounding User:BrocadeRiverPoems and X0n10ox (now [130])? They admit to sharing the same IP address and display identical editing patterns as documented in [131], with the questionable explanation of being "roommates" during the Yasuke-Wikipedia controversy just four months ago.

Consider the sequence of events:

1. X0n10ox makes multiple Yasuke-related edits
2. They delete their account claiming "their username was posted on 4chan"
3. Days later, BrocadeRiverPoems appears, makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection
4. BrocadeRiverPoems then advocates the identical position as their supposed roommate, exhibiting the same confrontational attitude that other editors have noted concerns about

This pattern should raise serious WP:SOCK concerns. The coincidences are difficult to ignore:

• Same IP address
• Similar editing style
• Same topic focus
• Similar behavioral patterns
• Suspicious timing

What's particularly ironic is that this user has a history of challenging other editors based on suspicious editing patterns. I anticipate they or their cronies will attempt to dismiss this analysis based on the fact that I'm posting as an IP editor.

Furthermore, we're now seeing IP editors consistently defending BrocadeRiverPoems across multiple discussions. The first reply to this thread is a perfect example. These patterns warrant closer examination. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If the supposed alternate account never edits it does not matter. Per WP:CLEANSTART this is allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't about WP:CLEANSTART itself -- it's about the pattern of behavior continuing unchanged. While users are allowed fresh starts, the concerning aspect here is that the same confrontational editing style and topic focus immediately resumed under the new account. WP:CLEANSTART is suppose dto give editors a chance to start fresh with better practices, not to simply continue problematic and alienating behavior under a different name. To quote,

• "The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior."

We should also note that this isn't just about past behavior - we're seeing active patterns with the IP editors consistently appearing to defend BrocadeRiverPoems's positions. This suggests the account may not be operating independently, which goes beyond the scope of a clean start. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Croystron failure to communicate

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

I don't know whether or not he "refuses to respond" which is implying you know his motivation. They may not know that they have a talk page, we don't know. But the fact is that they have never made a single post to a Talk page, User talk page or noticeboard. So, I don't think we can expect them to respond here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well Liz, I would think Croystron would notice the prominent talk page alerts on the top of each page when editing, specially since besides a talk page entry showing up, Croystron was separately pinged. Also, I would think his previous two week block would cause Croystron to wonder why. Is it your view that failure to check a talk page after multiple alerts on the top every page when editing relieves an editor of a need to communicate? It seems to me the editor should be required to communicate and, specially since Croystron has over 4,000 edits, ignorance is not an excuse. Also, not previously discussed is the basis for communication, that Croystron is violating Wikipedia's editing policy and consensus policy by not providing edit summaries. Regardless, a significant block of a month should serve Croystron well, either alerting that communication cannot be ignored, or alerting to start attending to the talk page. Otherwise, how do you suggest a 4,000 edit editor be further alerted to respond to an editing policy violation? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the editing besides not providing edit summaries? Is there a way of forcing edit summary use in mainspace? I note they have edited draft talk once, but I think that might have been an automated edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the "editing policy violation" that Croystron is guilty of? I see that since 1 October Croystron (talk · contribs) has been pretty good about adding edit summaries. Not perfect but they are making an attempt which makes this comment a little out of place. Plus they haven't edited since 12 November so they may not have even seen any of the recent notices. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Globe report-"(Arsh Dalla) Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book."

CTV report-Speaking to CTV News, Ritesh Lakhi, a well-connected independent journalist in India, says Dalla is “a very prominent player, as far as organized crime in the north state of Punjab.” ... Lakhi says that during previous conversations with Dalla, he even admitted his role in some of the murders, telling CTV News that Dalla “would simply call me up. I did a few interviews with him, and he would tell me why he killed this person. We've been watching his activities for the last three and a half years.” Lakhi goes on to add that in some cases in India, “there are certain gangsters who’ve been designated as terrorists, and Arsh Dalla happens to be one of them.” Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This undeniably proves that Dalla actively sought out media attention, thus making him a high profile person. Simonm ignored that on the t/p and instead claimed I only invoked OSE, which is egregiously insulting and disruptive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Two things:

1. this is the wrong noticeboard for what you are trying to do.
2. If you take a content dispute to the noticeboard that takes these sorts of complaints when there's already literally two arbitration enforcement cases about the same issue and against a person who has literally just said "we don't accuse plumbers from surrey of being gangsters on Wikipedia pages about alleged known associates," (like I literally haven't even done any edits to the page, you just don't like what I said about Wikipedia policy at article talk) you're going to catch a boomerang for these antics. Could an admin please close this thread?

Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, this is well beyond a content dispute- you're spouting off non existent Wikipedia policy and refusing to back them up despite multiple requests, consistently and knowingly ignoring me providing actual Wikipedia policy elements and backing them up, making hurtful accusations against me claiming a paragraph in which I highlighted numerous sources and policies was merely "other stuff exists" which is an egregious violation of decency and clearly intended to frustrate me, and gaslighting me by claiming that I'm the one who's ill-informed (you first lobbed the IDHT insult against me-[132]).

This is clearly not a content dispute, but a competence is required and IDHT problem on your part.

The fact that you cannot even address any of the claims I made above regarding WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:LOWPROFILE, either here on the article's t/p or on my t/p is telling. I engaged with you respectfully in the very beginning and was willing to have a conversation based on policy, but all you've done is make petty insults against me, insult my intelligence, demanded that I abide by your personal interpretation and preferences of Wiki policy, lied about what a policy section states, and ridiculed my arguments and brazenly straw manned them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant background: I filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against Southasianhistorian8 on November 14 due to conduct issues in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topic area (specifically Sikh topics). Simonm223 provided a statement as an uninvolved editor to that AE request,[133] then attempted to engage SAH on their user talk page.[134] This interaction ended with Simonm223 adding to his AE statement, saying "Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset."[135]

SAH appears in that interaction to try to WP:BADGER Simonm223 into agreement with walls of text, both on their user talk page and at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar, despite Simonm223 only wanting to keep the discussion at the user talk.[136]

This filing appears to be lashing out at Simonm223 for not agreeing with them. This is in-line with SAH filing a retaliatory AE request against me 7-hours after the one against them.[137]

Both the retaliatory AE request and this AN filing demonstrate both a clear non-understanding of WP:IDHT and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing in this topic area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins, GhostofDanGurney has a very long history of making hasty, ill researched claims about me, in a previous A/E, he falsely accused me of plagiarizing his work, ScottishFinnishRadish concluded that Ghost made inflammatory edit summaries against me and others and engaged in a tendentious interpretation of a primary source, he also falsely claimed I edit warred citing a grand total of one revert, and has now been told by 2 admins that his reports at A/E are based on content disputes. He's literally throwing anything and everything on the wall, hoping something sticks. I urge admins to look at Ghost's egregious conduct for themselves.

Now he's claiming that I badgered Simonm23 on their user talk page, which again is a straight up lie, the only post I made on Simonm's t/p is the notification for this AN post. Simonm also first stated that he wanted to relegate the discussion to my t/p then 9 minutes later posted on the article's t/p despite that fact that I never pinged or initiated a discussion with him there. So again, a brazen lie from Ghost.

This is also clear tag-teaming from 2 editors who clearly are on each other's side.

Nonetheless, there are severe issues about Simonm's conduct, and I urge admins not to fall for tricks that are intended to digress and take attention away from that. These conduct issues laid out here specifically pertaining to Simonm's conduct on my t/p and article t/p deserve to be addressed. 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This is straight up bullying now-[138] and the lack of self-awareness and brazen tag teaming is bewildering. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I was given an ultimatum for expired awareness notifications

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

[139], [140], and [141]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: you edited in area of Wikipedia that are under discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. tgeorgescu posted a standard contentious topic alert, which does not imply that your edits were improper. It appears that you take issue with the fact that the standard alert makes reference to the arbitration case that imposed those sanctions. I'm not sure why you take issue with that, but there's nothing improper about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)