Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normally would give a warning or even 2 then report the IP for vandalism... but we have an IP Hopper going around changing racial figures to the same number everywhere.. I think we may need a range block or something as their using different IPS ....example one - example 2 - example 3. I'm unsure how many articles are affected as I'm just noticing the ones on my watch list.Moxy🍁 02:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is two IPs. The /64 ranges are Special:Contributions/2a01:cb00:607:a00::/64 and Special:Contributions/2a02:8440:2502:5da1::/64. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've hardblocked those two /64s for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

I've now been alerted to similar disruption on my page for User:2a02:8440:250c:aaa4:5c9d:4864:f7c3:27f5 plus an account, Ydududu, so I've blocked those also. Not sure I'm doing any good with this: are you able to block a larger range, Johnuniq? Bishonen | tålk 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC). PS: No, this is not about "disruption on my page"! Bishonen | tålk 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Bishonen: The range Special:Contributions/2a02:8440:2500::/44 includes 2a02:8440:2502:5da1::/64 and 2a02:8440:250c:aaa4:5c9d:4864:f7c3:27f5 but it has no other recent bad edits. There are some apparently constructive edits at 2024 World Wrestling Championships. Perhaps someone here could report if the /44 range is used for more of these changes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I blocked the /44 for two weeks because 2A02:8440:250D:86B5:1052:608B:EB90:8302 made two more of these unexplained/unsourced number changes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

2001:448A:50E0:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /48 has been making long-term unsourced/unexplained birth date changes, and hasn't responded to warnings. /48 has been blocked 3 times previously, most recently in July 2024 for 3 months for "sustained date vandalism". Recent examples of unsourced birth date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've re-blockd the range for a year. It looks like it's been the same editor on there for years.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ponyo: The same vandalism has continued from Special:Contribs/2001:448A:50E0::/46. Could you apply a wider block? Thanks. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This most likely belongs to AE, but I'm not ECR so I'm not sure if I can report there. Apparently Techiya1925 committed several 1RR violations in Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (which is not even why I'm reporting this here), once confronted with that he began casting aspersions and even doubled down after being told to AGF by an admin.

In his talk page, I got the impression that he's accusing everyone who goes against his POV of being either radical Islamic propagandists or “they/them” computer geeks who hate Jews. Previously today he got warned for engaging in an edit war. I don't think that such WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is useful for the encyclopedia.— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please make sure that when you are doing your investigation, you look at everything. From the beginning, to the end. In various discussions on the talk page of the article. Techiya1925 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I've blocked the editor for 24 hours due to their continued personal attacks of fellow users. Considering this has been happening on a CTOP, and their clear battleground behavior, I'd support an indef tban from the topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I think that was very lenient. I might well have blocked for a much longer time for this. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, they should be indefinitely blocked until they can prove otherwise for nonsense like that. C F A 💬 20:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Huh, I completely glossed over that part of the comment. That's my bad. I've upgraded the block to indef as an individual admin action, although there is some consensus here for such. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone going to point out the random, completely unprompted, transphobia? Iostn (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iostn, do you have any diffs of this behavior? Because I've looked over their talk page comments for the past two days and aside from this diff shared by Black Kite, I can see them getting upset over a contentious subject but that's the only attack I can see. I know there is a no tolerance rule for attacks based on race, gender, gender identity, ethnicity and religion but this does seem like an isolated incident. They should have stepped away from the article and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Liz, I could be wrong but I interpreted "they/them" computer geeks who hate Jews as a thinly veiled and staggeringly unfriendly allusion to transgender editors. But perhaps they are only mocking antisemitic editors who prefer the singular they. Anything is possible in The New World. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Liz basically what Cullen said, although the main reason I mentioned it was because although it was quoted the whole unprovoked nature of it is probably something worth at least noting Iostn (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iostn and Cullen, thanks for pointing that out. Stating pronoun preference is so common in my little part of the world that I can sometimes be oblivious when it is used as an insult. I don't know if that qualifies a person as transphobic but it was definitely not appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a collective insult, like he-she before it. Brazenly weaponized this year, no less. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's a new right-wing talking point. Basically a combination of anti-nonbinary prejudice, but also transphobia as TERFs seem to think nonbinary is a stepping stone to being trans (a la the old canard that bisexuality is a stepping stone to being homosexual). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the effort to look at the nuances here, but I would have to respectfully disagree with the idea that this was a light or ambiguous violation. Plenty of users have felt angry and frustrated at times on WP, but it had never descended to a low of making explicitly discriminatory, both Islamophobic and transphobic, comments towards other editors. Connecting transgender people as a whole with hating Jews, is transphobic. Connecting anyone they disagree with on Israel as a "radical Islamic propagandist", a four-fold assumption of them being: 1- Muslim in religion 2- Islamist in thinking 3- radicalized and 4- propagadanist. I have been editing on WP for a decade and I have never encountered this level of unfiltered hate speech. This should be taken extremely seriously. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Golden409bus (talk · contribs) has been edit warring at Seven Sisters station. I was considering a 3RR report until I saw this morning's abusive post (diff) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. I have a lot of respect for my fellow Wikiproject editor Redrose64 (talk · contribs) and I don't believe that the comments made about Redrose64 are in any way justifiable. When combined with the edit-warring behaviour I believe it is justifiable to bring Golden409bus' behaviour here. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

10mmsocket, your statement says "comments", was there more than this one diff? Have you tried talking to this editor first before coming to ANI? Give them an edit warring notice? These are usually the first steps we advise editors to take. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverted and warned user. — Voice of Clam (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's another approach. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is such a warning needed? It was warranted (and given) by their behaviour in the article (and with 3RR additions, certainly so) but their behaviour on the project page has now gone beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Liz - I would have gone to 3RR, but I thought that the disrespectful comment indicated someone who was unlikely to play nicely so and so brought it here instead. Every day is a school day though, so will know for the future. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please block Right Hand Guy. Thanks Nobody (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's user:MidAtlanticBaby .Typical recent behaviour is to take a one-month-old sleeper account, game extended confirmed by making 500 trivial and meaningless edits, and then attack User:Magnolia677. See User talk:Magnolia677#IP. It seems someone has added a filter which is working (check the 140 or so disallowed edits in the edit filter log), so now they're spamming Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. Meters (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The brazenness is astounding too. Imagine reporting, with a straight face that something was a false positive because they were "trying to get revenge on a user." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that Right Hand Guy has made several attempts to delete this discussion, and appears to have reverted Nythar's reports elsewhere too. See his contributions. — Czello ^(music) 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have indefinitely blocked Right Hand Guy for multiple reasons that amount to "not here to build an encyclopedia". Cullen328 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

User is now continuing disruption logged out as 184.65.140.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 08:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

yup, likes to burn up open proxies. Meters (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Right Hand Guy blocked by Cullen328, I've blocked the IP account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now on 27.145.15.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Czello ^(music) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That one was blocked too. MAB has some balls removing this, but I'll dare say it's best we don't stuff beans up our noses? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Blocked. – robertsky (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I wonder how many months/years it's going to take us to develop another proxy-blocking bot after ST47ProxyBot's retirement. These open proxy vandals are becoming more and more common. Is anyone currently working in that area by any chance? Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Well, we know who this is and what they want to do. I think the editor involved the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Permission gaming after warnings was MidAtlanticBaby, too. They are gaming to become extended confirmed to harass a specific editor on the project. If you see this happen, go directly to an active admin. We are familiar with his MO at this point. I've semi-protected this noticeboard for a few days so you don't have to play revert wars with the latest IP removing this report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They are continuing to try to remove this report with registered accounts. Admins patrolling here, please keep an eye open for their vandalism here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now Project MAKEOVER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Would making this board EC-protected be excessive / too disruptive? — Czello ^(music) 09:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I might get flack for doing just that but it's only for a few hours. Just long enough for them to get discouraged and move on (hopefully). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:RBI is probably the best approach if they return. — Voice of Clam (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As well as WP:DENY. MAB had been already banned from different off-wiki platforms as per DENY procedure. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - looking for a second opinion on whether to take action about something. An anonymous user operating on 2003:DC:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been dipping into multiple articles (some of them BLPs) to add the word 'jewish' for the last couple of weeks. Examples: John Malkovich, David Ayer, Jacques Lebaudy, I counted about a dozen similar instances, going back to 28 October on this range. They get tagged, but the aren't automatically reverted by ClueBot - they have all been manually reverted so far. It's a different article every time, no point in applying protection, and they are jumping about within this range, so there's no realistic way of communicating with them, and blocking a range this wide would involve a significant amount of collateral. Wondering whether others think that the disruption is significant enough to warrant an anon-block on the range. Pinging Acroterion in particular as another admin I saw reverting these edits. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could've sworn this was some sort of LTA. More than one person would use "Jewish" in the same way one would use "American" or any other nationality? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was an LTA, but I don't know which one. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There has been an uptick in Jew-tagging in the past year. Most of it is meant maliciously, others are simply misunderstandings of how WP approaches religion and ethnicity; it's hard to tell sometimes. I would not be surprised if there are LTAs involved in some of these with recognizable geolocations, but I don't recognize this one. The ones I've been familiar with have come from Sweden or northern Italy, but I'm sure there are wannabe LTAs lurking. I think the best route is to keep doing what we're doing, and keep an eye on edit filter 982, which does a good job of flagging potential problems.,and revert when appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I strongly suspect Gccmkt (talk · contribs) is a COI account involved with Greensboro Complex. (The name seems to be an abbreviation of "Greensboro Complex Marketing".) They undid my removal of an excessively long directory listing from the article and sent me a threatening e-mail demanding I reinstate it. I politely e-mailed back reminding them of WP:OWN and have yet to hear back. Meanwhile, I suggest the account be blocked for COI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have indefinitely blocked Gccmkt for a "Promotional username/promotional editing" username violation. Similar problems can be reported to WP:UAA in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

• Suspected IPs:

1. 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Evidence of Sockpuppetry:

1. Identical Edit Reversions Across IPs: All three IP addresses reverted my edits in identical ways shortly after each other, suggesting coordinated activity. Contribution Links: 76.68.24.171, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C

1. Editing the Same Articles from the Same Location: All three IPs have edited the same articles from what appears to be the same geographical location. IP Location Verification Links: 76.68.24.171, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C

• Harassment and Violation of Civility Policy:

The user has made personal remarks that could be considered harassment, including comments about my location. This violates Wikipedia’s Civility and Personal Attacks policy. Diff Link: Evidence of personal comments

• Description of Disruptive Edit Reversions:

This user has been consistently reverting my edits across multiple articles without clear reason, preventing constructive updates.

• Request for Admin Investigation:

Please investigate this suspected sockpuppetry and harassment. The user’s behavior is creating a disruptive environment and obstructing contributions. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It happens that IP users will involuntarily jump across different IPs, and that is not considered sockpuppetry if not done to break policy. In fact, the last two IPs are from the same /64 range (the first half of the IP, which depends on the device, is the same, while the second half can often change randomly). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chaotic Enby ok

but other extended confirmed users are considering that those are different user. And they are saying that the three ip users are not agreeing with my edit.

is it fair?

That IP user is not letting me update articles. what should i do? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As always, the best thing to do when someone is reverting your edits is to discuss it with them. As /64 ranges don't have a unified talk page, and the reverts happened on multiple articles, it might be difficult to find a place to discuss, but I see that they replied to another user at User talk:2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C, presumably talking about their reverts of your edits. It can be good to use that as a starting point to discuss the reverts there, especially since they seem to mention policies such as WP:OR. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chaotic Enby, I tried to discuss but he cleared the topic from his talk page from another IP address.

in most edits he mentions this WP:OR policy.

and what about this ? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Their edit summary isn't very respectful, but the IP is right that this addition was OR and shouldn't have been added without sources. Also, you've both been edit-warring on that page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) @Cerium4B: The unregistered user should not have made that gibe about a "poor place", that was uncivil. But as Chaotic Enby says, they have a point. Verifiability—providing references—is one of our basic policies, and that's what the IP is referring to when they talk about WP:OR. Can you find a reference to cite that says Nawabganj National Park is a small forest of Sal trees? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Yngvadottir

I’ve added references in that article.

also giving here — https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/country-news/2019/06/06/777199

Isn’t 517.61 Hector a small forest?

I have visited this place many times…! - Cerium4B • Talk? • 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

See [14] [15] Andre🚐 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for a week. No objections to another admin lengthening the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Ziobitch" is a particularly vile form of ethnonationalist harassment. I have extended the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Iranian Zazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please consider blocking User:Iranian Zazaki. I think this racist nonsensical response to a general notice on their talk page makes it sufficiently clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Aside from that, their edits so far, nearly all reverted, have been non-constructive, unsourced, and in one case WP:UNCIVIL: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. R Prazeres (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bbb23 has blocked this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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

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

This IP user has received numerous warnings - from what I can see here all of their edits are disruptive and being reverted... their current target is floodplain Artem...^Talk 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Artem P75, you are not correctly linking to pages. You don't need the entire "https://en.wikipedia...etc" if you are linking to a page, not an edit. That said, most of these notices that were posted happened some time ago and you have to supply "diffs" or edits that make you think this is an "urgent" or "intractible" case that belongs at ANI. You can't just link to their contributions, you have to point out diffs that violate our policies.

Also, you have now brought two cases to ANI tonight. As I said, this is a noticeboard for some urgent problems that need to be immediately addressed (like WP:AIV. You haven't demonstrated why this case needs administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

For example, link to their User talk page with a simple User talk:165.228.39.86 rather than the entire URL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay @Liz Thank you for letting me know! I will take that onboard for the future :) Artem...^Talk 10:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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 ([21][22]) 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)Reply

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)Reply

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.[23] 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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 ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). I repeatedly asked for reliable sources confirming that the J-31B and J-35 were the same variant, but only got more WP:OR and claims that that the sources were already in the article (I was unable to find any such sources in the article). On top of that, Lgnxz dropped several personal attacks, first calling me an "avid wikipedia fundamentalist" and then saying that I was "clearly unwell". After I warned them about the second attack, they responded with this confusing, dare I say trolling comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

@Ethiopian Epic Only has 13 edits[31] 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)Reply

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)Reply

Really? 11 minor edits and then a big edit on a protected article? I find these two especially suspicious:[32][33]

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

@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)Reply

Sure, here is a change I made on 5. October[34]. It was changed by a different editor again in October [35] 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)Reply

This is the version that I think is closest to the last version by EE[36] Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 [37] Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, I meant to congratulate you on your election!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

Upd Edit (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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