Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Inexpiable has posted on my talk page after multiple requests from me asking him to stop.

In addition, an account that is 7 days old has suddenly sprung out of nowhere and made the same reverts to two articles that Inexpiable made to my changes. See Gabrielle103's contributions. It seems extremely likely that the two accounts are connected, and I plan to file a sockpuppet report. Wes sideman (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I've posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wes sideman reported by User:Inexpiable (Result:_) This user has been extremely toxic and engaging in an ongoing edit war since the end of 2020 with another user. He has refused to gain consensus on the talk page of the article in question: Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods. I tried to seek a middle ground between both users and he resorted to continuing to revert the article as well as modifying other articles that I used as examples to suit his argument, as seen here: [1] and here: [2].

Why he is making such a big deal over the word "drug" and "crack" is beyond me. I was merely trying to gain WP:Consensus which he refused to participate in and merely changed the article wording again, as he has done since end of 2020, to suit his agenda. I listed examples in the edit warring report I made that shows he has been engaging in a long term edit war since the end of 2020 with TheXuitts. Inexpiable (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of his ongoing edit war, and this is with another user, not myself:

Original revision: [3]. First time Wes changed it: [4].

More examples of him reverting it here over the past few years and months: [5], [6] [7], [8]. The examples are from end of 2020, 2021, March 2022, and yesterday. Inexpiable (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're trying to distract from the fact that you and Gabrielle103 are obviously connected in some way. Wes sideman (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet account. I was patrolling the recent edits and saw that Wes has been edit warring, so I reverted their changes back to Inexpiable's (I say their because I'm not sure what Wes' pronouns are, if they have them that is). This is clearly visible from my recent contributions, in which I have edited multiple articles on or around the same minute as the previous edit (such as Dangerfield Newby, 2022 Lebanese general election and Population displacements in Israel after 1948). I'm just some rando woman lol Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That account is 7 days old, has made about 30 edits to articles in that time, and it had an astounding amount of expertise about wikipedia right from Day 1. Wes sideman (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman: I have no opinion on the merits of your accusation, but if you believe you have sufficient evidence, you should reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DrAcHeNWiNgZz (Inexpiable's previous username). Otherwise, you need to cease accusing Inexpiable of socking because it constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Bbb23. I actually already did that about a half hour ago. Wes sideman (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it constitute a personal attack to me as well? Gabrielle103 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't a sock, no. However, the SPI (now moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft) has already found Gabrielle103 as a sock of the new case name user and has been summarily indeffed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since DrAcHeNWiNgZz no longer exists, shouldn't a clerk move the page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inexpiable if a new case is open? casualdejekyll 23:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No we are different people. I am based in the UK. Nice try at trying to discredit my arguments though. Inexpiable (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm based in the UK too, just to put that out there. But I appreciate you clearing things up about how we're different people though :) Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable: per WP:NOBAN, if an editor has asked you to stay away from their talk page you need to do so unless you have a very good reason not to do so. Posting required notifications is one of the only times you have a good reason to post when you were asked to stay away. So this edit was likely okay [9]. But these edits were clearly not [10] [11] coming after these clear requests [12] [13]. The second one coming right after a second request was particularly silly since by that stage you'd already given an edit warring warning (despite being already asked to stay away). There was zero need to violate the clear requests to stay away to post a stronger warning. If you had to open a WP:ANEW case, you could easily point to your first warning combined with the requests to stay away to explain why there were no stronger warnings. I mean even your first warning was a already a edit warring warning of sorts as you acknowledged in the ANEW thread, so frankly even your posting your first clear edit warring warning in violation of the request to stay away was silly. So while Wes sideman needs to stop accusing you of sockpuppetry apparently without sufficient evidence (while Gabrielle103 was a sock, the a CU didn't see sufficient evidence to run a check on you) or they'll be blocked for WP:NPA; you need to lay off Wes sideman's talk page or you'll be blocked for WP:harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my bad, and I apologise for that. But they were Red Warn warnings through the program. It's not like I deliberately went to his page and kept posting talk comments. Sometimes I may accidentally send messages from Red Warn by mistake as it is easy to do. I have also seen examples of other users telling others off for deleting Red Warn warnings on their own talk pages as a way of covering up prior warnings. But I will learn from this and not do it again if that's not the right thing to do. Inexpiable (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So DrAcHeNWiNgZz and Inexpiable are not the same person? Then how does one explain this? 86.167.69.238 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, that's pretty obvious and the answer to your question. They were renamed. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I didn't know you could do that. Apologies for the misdirection. 86.167.69.238 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue: Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a fairly new editor, has made >90 edits to templates. Most of those edits have been unnecessary or unhelpful, and some have introduced grammatical errors (a few examples cited here).[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Dawn's edits to templates have been reverted by Andrybak[22], The Grid[23], Primefac[24], Sdkb[25] and me.

Attempts to resolve: Dawn received personal messages about changing templates from Jmcgnh[26] and me[27][28]. Dawn continued to edit templates, and I gave them a templated warning with an added message about discussing template changes on the talk page first,[29] which they removed with the edit summary I'll stop.[30] They then immediately edited another template,[31] and then again today.[32]

Suggested action: Dawn appears to have good intentions but lacks the Wikipedia experience to be making bold edits to templates. I propose a pblock from template space; some time of suggesting changes on talk:template pages that are approved and made by other editors can help them learn and establish that they are ready to edit templates directly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yes, I'm in general agreement with the assessment of the value of these past edits - mostly non-improvements, some actually disruptive - and agree that a partial block would likely be sufficient remedy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support these actions. I admit my lack of proper attention to followup, as I never contacted them about the reverts I made and that I had seen them making them often and should probably stop. Since there have been notices left, seemingly to no effect, a tban may be the only recourse here. Primefac (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

I saw this and i want to explain some things. I wanted to change and tried to make better edits and they still were reverted. Some still were reverted when i fixed the problems mentioned (like [33] (indirect)). As i continued, the summaries get unclearer (especially [34] and [35]). Eventually even when I tried minor trivial edits, partly by desperation, it still was reverted (here [36], i think discussion isn't warranted here). Everybody else who reverted, i do find a reason clearly, and so do some edits in the early stages of this. I don't want a pblock, just a detailed explanation exactly on what i did wrong on the edits and work from there, other than grammatical errors, because right now I'm just confused on the exact reason. Thank you. Dawn Lim (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawn PScLim The edits you are making are adding redundant and useless text, converting sentences into nonsense and inappropriately changing the meaning of the templates you are editing. Looking at three of the diffs from your comment

1. In this edit here [37] the first bit of text is unnecessary repetition. The first sentence already says This article appears to have insufficient references, adding and requires more citations is just repeating the same point. The second addition completely changes the meaning of the template - this is a template used to tag potential notability issues, not verifiability problems.
2. This edit [38] converts some of the text of the message into nonsense. and add reliable sources if any for uncited claims. does not make sense.
3. In this edit [39] you completely change the definition of a guideline - practices that editors should follow and practices that editors should usually follow have completely different implications. The second sentence fragment you add, before making changes, is again redundant to the first part of the section you added it to, which states Any substantive edit to this page ...

You should not be editing major clean-up and policy templates with your current level of experience. The wording of these templates is very carefully chosen and individual words may have specific meanings on Wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn PScLim, I explained the problems on your talk page. Jmcgnh told you The wording on many templates has been carefully hashed out through a consensus process and should not be changed without understanding that background. I cautioned you to discuss on the talk page before changing templates, and you replied (in your edit summary) I'll stop but you didn't stop making changes and you didn't use any of the talk:template pages to discuss making changes.

What you need to do is to use the talk:template pages to suggest changes that you think will improve a template, and get consensus with other editors that those changes should be made before editing templates. It might also help you learn if you could team up with an experienced template editor for mentoring. But you really need to stop adding unnecessary words and changing existing words in these widely-used templates without discussing these changes first. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'll try to do edits on smaller templates in the meanwhile. However the first one you mentioned is a sandbox, and i don't pay as much care with sandboxes, as they don't affect other pages. Dawn Lim (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawn PScLim I'm not sure what you mean by "the first one you mentioned is a sandbox", all three of the edits I gave feedback on were made to the actual live template pages. I would strongly suggest that you do not edit any templates directly for the foreseeable future - you have been extremely disruptive in that namespace and have annoyed a lot of people; if you just start making the same type of edits to other templates you are going to end up blocked. If you want to suggest a change to a template go to its talk page and start a discussion - if other editors agree they will make the edit for you. As a newbie you should be focusing on learning policy and writing articles, not mucking about with the wording of templates. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I mistaken that edit as a sandbox edit similar to it. And of course I will try to change the type of edits. Dawn Lim (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also take more care with your other (non-template) edits. I looked at one Special:Diff/1088577750 and there were lots of errors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing a sampling of his non-template edits, I believe one of the issues is lack of English language proficiency. I suggest that Dawn PScLim slow down and take more care with his edits: perhaps having an English native-speaker assist. There's already lots of cleanup needed with prior edits, though he does make some good content additions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if an admin would deal with this issue. Dawn has now edited another template.[40] The "fix" they added shows that Dawn does not understand the purpose of Template:Partisan sources. It also shows that Dawn does not intend to take the advice given in this thread. I'm afraid that the only way to get Dawn to edit collaboratively with other editors on templates is to restrict them to the template talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted this extremely poorly written and ungrammatical addition to some template documentation, which appears to try to say the same thing in 5 different ways. [41] 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unregisterd User:Vaultralph systematically deletes passages/sections in Mokshas rolling back to obsolete info----Numulunj pilgae (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you're referring to when you say "unregisterd (sic)"? Because this user is pretty clearly registered. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they mean "unconfirmed?" Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The version with "obsolete info" sure looks like a better article and is mostly sourced. The current version at Mokshas is filled with original research and broken source links, plus random head-scratchers like red links and policy links in "Main article" tags. And then there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Mokshas, which appears to be a duplicate article that Numulunj pilgae is updating at the same time. I'm also seeing original research and other low-quality edits to Mordvins (before and current) and unclear or missing citations at the new article Moksha name. It looks like Numulunj pilgae may lack the proficiency in English to edit here. Woodroar (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was blanked again by user Rsjaffe (talk · contribs), who asserted that the content added by Numulunj pilgae (talk · contribs) is inaccurate and poorly written. Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mokshas, concerning a content fork created by Numulunj pilgae. I'd also like your opinion on how to clean up existing content in the status quo revision, particularly the History section which hasn't changed much since the {{expert needed}} tag was added in June 2012. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to the last edit prior, not blanked it. I sampled some of the assertions (population numbers) in Numulunj pilgae's edits to see if they matched the sources, and they did not. See [42] for a discussion of the concern that Numulunj pilgae is using WP:OR or perhaps inventing things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaultralph (talk · contribs): Vaultralph should be blocked because they have continued to do what they were warned to stop doing the last time they were blocked, namely edit warring over ethnicity. See their talk page for that info. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden: I don't see any instances of edit warring since the last block, except for this incident at Sámi. I'm not convinced that their conduct at Mokshas constitutes edit warring, although they should have given an edit summary the first time they restored the status quo, like they did the second time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sámi incident is what I am referring to, they edit warred to keep a man listed as being of that ethnicity, citing their own original research of looking at his facial features instead of using any reliable sources. It's in line with their previous behaviour, they were given a strong warning and a final chance by the blocking administrator and went against it not long after their block expired. If an administrator wants to close this, I would say indef since as said Vaultralph went against the conditions that were placed upon them. TylerBurden (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have concerns about the accuracy of the information Numulunj pilgae is adding to the article. In Special:Diff/1088732512 they acknowledge that the Russian Census 1926 when Mokshas number last time was calculated separately, so to give the correct number it needs time but the user is using later data that lumps Mokshas with other ethnic groups for population counts. Numulunj pilgae is also attacking users instead of addressing factual disputes: e.g., Special:Diff/1088806640 when he states that I seem to be ethnically biased removing info on Moksha Jewish heritage. It's a rather mild attack as attacks go, but I'd rather that those attacks stop.

It'd be better for all concerned if Numulunj pilgae were to, instead of wholesale changes to the article, introduce information one item at a time, so that others could review the accuracy of each assertion. I suspect the user does have some useful information to add, but it is submerged in a lot of WP:OR and inaccurate information. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make any comments about Numulunj pilgae's and Vaultralph's recent edits at Mordvins [43] [44]? I noticed that both users, at this point, are accusing each other of vandalism.

At Talk:Mordvins#Ethnicity_with_no_Common_language_and_no_common_ancestry and the newly created article Erzya-Moksha Autonomy, Numulunj pilgae is also pushing the POV that the Mordvin ethnic group was created by the Soviet Union in 1928. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: And also that they are Jewish rather than Eastern Orthodox, and Baltic Finns rather than Volga Finns. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand their purpose of posting in Talk:Mordvins. The Mordvins article states that the term is a Soviet invention. I don't see anything contradicting that. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any relationships between the two ethnic groups. From my reading, the Moksha and Erzya languages are closely related (splitting from each other about 1000 CE) but mutually unintelligible.^[1] Their languages are in the Baltic Finnic group (see Finnic languages) but they live in the Volga region (see Volga Finns). Should they be called Baltic or Volga or just state the facts: a Baltic-Finnish speaking people in the Volga Finnic region. They are definitely two different ethnic groups, but have some common roots if you go back far enough. I'm having trouble finding reliable information showing that Mokshas have either what we'd consider traditional Jewish Ashkenazi ancestry or a Jewish religious history (e.g., via conversion rather than by Askenazic lineage). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Now I see that the content of the Mordvins article is flipping around, and I was responding to a prior version. This is a hot mess, and making wholesale changes, as both combatants are doing, prevents us from properly judging the sourcing and appropriateness of each assertion in the article. For example, I am becoming more and more skeptical of the Jewish heritage claim. It seems that claim is linked to the history with the Khazars, and the Khazars article has a carefully researched discussion of the Khazars-Judaism link (or lack thereof).

Getting back to the behavior, I think there needs to be a stop to this. Numulunj pilgae in particular is having a problem with original research and making assertions that are not well-founded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need also to add that "Mordvin" referring to a resident of that area may be an older term, but "Mordvin" as an ethnic identifier is Soviet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nascarbball24 (talk · contribs) appears to have an allergy to the user_talk space on Wikipedia. They have been repeatedly told on their talk page to stop creating articles with no references/only database references. The articles, however, continue to be made (see the myriad of AfD notices) and the user has made a total of 0 edits to their own talk page or indeed, anyone else's. Since they have also ignored my attempt to inform them of WP:ENGAGE, I am therefore proposing a block from page creations until the issues on their talk page are addressed. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I can block someone from creating pages, so I have blocked the user from article space only for 3 days in order to prevent further mess and hopefully grab their attention. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney, Now the question is, who is going to add results to other drivers' articles for this weekend's races? NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 14:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that they can address the issues at hand quickly and in that case, there's no need to worry. Besides, WP:WIP, etc. Regardless, it'll get done. I never considered such edits to be urgent, anyway. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked beneath their appeal how exactly they edit; they say they had no idea until the block how to communicate, so it's possible they're using a phone or tablet to edit, and the m.en.wiki site is infamously lousy at alerting editors of UT warnings and issues. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, the block has gotten his attention. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising

Please review the following Wikipedia entries for a suspected case of blatant advertising of an enterprise and product:

Nosh Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_Technologies

Nosh (app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_(app)

Nosh daily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_daily

Nosh Shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_Shop

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias2934 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias2934: (Non-administrator comment) Please explain exactly how the pages in question constitute blatant advertising including analysing quotes from the article to make that point clear. I assume you are talking about IMLone wolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); you must notify them of this discussion if that is the case, as is required by the large red box at the top of this page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean conflict of interest? M.Bitton (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advertising, I see a description of services and products, but descriptions are not the same thing as advertisements. --Jayron32 11:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias2934 seems to be the one being disruptive here. The origin of this dispute seems to be Somdip Dey, which Tobias2934 has repeatedly tried to WP:TAGBOMB with irrelevant and unjustified cleanup tags [45] [46] [47]. They were asked to justify their addition of tags on the talk page [48], where they provided no convincing rationale as to why they were applied. IMLone wolf removed the tags apparently asking other editors on the IRC chat, which Tobias2934 reverted then filed a bogus ANI report listing four of IMLone wolf's pages (including two redirects) as spam. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they seem to have a thing against this person and company and as a result have taken to Wikipedia about it. I don't see any advertising, I see plenty of notability and at least half decent references. None of Tobias2934's edits appear to be justified. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Nosh Technologies is independently notable from Nosh (app), and as such it does feel like advertising. Most of the coverage is about the app. Tobias also tagged Somdip Dey with various problems, which were partially valid & resolved.

@Tobias2934: if you're worried about promotional editing, posting at WP:NPOVN may be better, as rewriting articles for neutrality does not require any administrative intervention. Femke (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to the correct noticeboard. Tobias2934 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editors, I am not an admin and I refrained myself from participating in this discussion as its part of ANI (admins mostly). Anyhow, I would like to point out few things as part of this discussion as follows(I might be wrong as I am a moderately new editor and can be wrong).

I created the Nosh (app) article and has been editing it as the news references became available online. Most news article (references) has mentioned nosh and I created a redirect article of Nosh Technologies to the Nosh (app) before creating the full article. But recent news articles on India Currents, EU Startups & Outlook India magazine show that the company, though commonly known name might be Nosh Technologies, is actually known by Nosh or Nosh Tech (Nosh app is the same name as the company as well). This made me believe that the company Nosh Technologies are know publicly by Nosh or Nosh Tech on its own (based on the news references).

This was also evident from the news articles as provided in TechCrunch, TechCrunch Japan & South China Morning Post as well (just to name the few among several news references).

There are numerous articles which talks about Nosh as a company as follows (instead of Nosh Technologies) as mentioned in the article about Nosh Technologies and I thought that given the breadth and depth of the coverage by media it might be better to create a separate page with the company's name. [Please consider the case of DeepMind Technologies that is popularly (publicly) known as DeepMind rather than DeepMind Technologies]

Once again, I am still learning, but I would still stand on the footing that Nosh Technologies (which is also known as Nosh) should be better to have an article based on the news references. I might stand corrected but I will leave that to more experience editors like you here. IMLone wolf (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. I casually came to found these pages based on another article that I had a dispute about, it just seems that all of these pages are mostly edited by the same user. Tobias2934 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:IMLone wolf has been blocked: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MeLucifer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 May 2022, an IP posted their version to Ottobock page (diff: [49]). The version was edited on behalf of Ottobock as they hired a firm called Finsbury Glover Hering Europe (diff: [50]). As per WP:COI, paid editors can't edit the page directly and this was rightly reverted a day back. Now, User:Hawkeye7 think otherwise (it was a surprise that they are not aware of this guideline) or maybe they are part of this paid ring? Maybe, they have to clarify here.

The page has a history of paid/COI editing (see a corporate account User:Merle at Ottobock), so these edits weren't a surprise. Thanks. 2406:E003:C1B:E401:F920:C6B5:3570:5741 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7's edits on that page are certainly disturbing. An IP literally says they've added something as a paid edit (albeit a translation from the Germany Wikipedia), another IP removes it as paid editing and Hawkeye7 reverts with the edit summary of "rv - IPs cannot make editorial decisions - take it to the talk page". When reverted they revert again saying take it to the talk page. As we know the onus is on the editor inserting the information to get consensus, but Hawkeye7's edits there are not right. Not sure it needs more than a trouting and pointing to of some rules, but the claim that IPs cannot make editorial decisions and edit warring to reinsert content literally stating it's paid work is worrying. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid work added by an IP, who at the same time can't make editorial decisions? Although WP:COI doesn't say that paid editors cannot edit directly, and it looks like the IP made the necessary disclosure, so everybody is wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know where in Wikipedia policy it states that IPs cannot make editorial decisions. Why even allow them to edit Wikipedia then? WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with the hypocrisy that ScottishFinnishRadish points out of it's content an IP inserted in the first place. It's really disturbing edits from such a long time editor, and I'd really like a good explanation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They also don't understand WP:BRD apparently. An IP adds info, another IP removes it, Hawkeye readds it, a third IP removes it again, and Hawkeye reverts this as well[51] with the edit summary " WP:BRD: Take it to the talk page", even though the IP is restoring the status quo (the R part) and Hawkeye has now twice undone this without starting a talk page discussion themselves. Disregard for IP editors, reinstating paid edits, edit warring, and displaying a severe misunderstanding of what WP:BRD is... Fram (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to omit the weird WP:BRD / WP:ONUS switcheroo, and even if we were also to omit the WP:PAID / WP:COI components, I am puzzled by this mindset. An IP is allowed to edit (i.e. make editorial decisions), but Hawkeye7's editorial decisions take precedent due to... reasons? It's nonsensical. El_C 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this can be worked out as, paid edit or no, that version of the article is vastly superior to what is there at present. "As political situation in post-war Berlin was unstable, and soon after the company was founded, it moved to Königsee in Thuringia" ? Ugh. ValarianB (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the actual edit seems to be mostly good and an improvement. Anyway lets give Hawkeye7 some time, they're in Australia and given their edit history this is now outside their normal online and editing hours. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any actual evidence here that Hawkeye7 was being paid. Hawkeye7 is the main editor of the article going back six years, so it was very likely to be on their watchlist. I see no reason to assume that this was anything other than Hawkeye7 believing that the edits improved the article (and others here seem to be in agreement with that), and if I saw a reversion of a third of the article on my watchlist I'd certainly have checked it out - making it unsurprising that Hawkeye7 noticed the reversion. Before accusing an editor of being paid there needs to be something to back it up. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here really believes they are outside the OP, just that their behaviour and comments are odd as is their understanding of who can edit and BRD etc. And there could be some WP:OWN issues. As I mentioned above, I don't this is a super serious matter, but there's some understanding issues that need to be addressed and a possible trouting. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my hassle is that I'm not seeing anything particularly odd, but maybe I've been editing too long. The edit summary was of course clearly wrong, but I've run into plenty of editors willing to accept paid edits if they improve the article, just as I encounter plenty who will remove on sight just because it was paid. The whole paid editing thing is a mess, so I tend not to jump up and down at people on either side of the accept/revert debate. Without any reason to think that Hawkeye7 was paid, all I'm seeing is someone who wrote a dumb edit summary and who felt that the article was better with the content - and was willing to revert to keep it, albeit without hitting 3RR. If the content was promotional I'd have an issue, but as everyone seems to think that it made the article better, I just see it as the usual butting of heads over paid editing.

On the edit summary side, Hawkeye was wrong with the summary used to revert the IP. But the IP was wrong with the interpretation of WP:COI that they used to revert the edits.

Honestly, I wish we could go back to the days before paid editing was a thing, but I fear that was a time that never really existed. :( - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much never did. MyWikiBiz was running less than 5 years after Wikipedia was started; that was 17 years ago. That cat's been out of the bag for a LONG time. --Jayron32 18:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no financial stake in the topic company and am not now nor have I even been paid for any editing. This is a smear, and is totally unjustified and without substance. I considered the edits in question as improvements to the article, and my understanding of WP:COI is that it does not require the automatic removal of such edits. I was not edit warring, I was simply going through the usual WP:BRD cycle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the accusations that you are a shill are clearly without merit. There are still two issues that have come up that need addressing. 1) In an edit summary, you stated "IPs cannot make editorial decisions", if I may be so blunt, WTAF did you mean by that? That's a fairly problematic thing to say in the middle of a dispute. 2) Best practices around BRD involve not reverting other than the first revert, and this is true even if the other person reverts you back. The idea is to stop reverting and discuss. If the other person reverts your revert, you still shouldn't revert again. The spirit of BRD is the willingness to discuss an article while knowing that the version you don't like is currently the one everyone gets to see. If other people aren't doing that, let them. You can't get in trouble for letting other people be the worst behaved in an edit war. Reverting multiple times only places your name at the top of that list. --Jayron32 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (after edit conflict) User:Hawkeye7, I'm sure the title of this section is wrong, and I'm quite prepared to believe, along with others above, that this was an improvement to the article, but you were very obviously not going through the WP:BRD cycle. A bold edit was made. It was reverted. The next step in that process is to start a talk page discussion, which you should have done rather than re-revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're quite right, I shouldn't have done that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you comment on your edit summary of "rv - IPs cannot make editorial decisions - take it to the talk page"? Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  COI does not require reversion of all content created. That kind of change in policy requires an RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Purely as a FYI: At least one of the tools (I can't recall which) won't let you do a "revert" if there have been intermediate edits and it forces you to revert everything newer first. If you want to do an actual revert rather than remove the content via an edit then you aren't given much choice and have to revert everything until you get to the edit you disagree with. Best practice in that situation would be to re-add any unrelated edits you reverted in the interim but I have some sympathy for those leaving that bit out.

  As to why you would want to revert rather than just edit out the content, it makes it clear that you are the one doing the reverting and (hopefully) starting a BRD cycle rather than being on the back foot with the originator reverting you and saying that the onus is on you to to get consensus for your change rather than accepting that it was their edit that was reverted. This has happened to me more than once and it is rather frustrating.

  I hope that helps with context. Gusfriend (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, it doesn't really. It's challenging to follow at parts. Hawkeye7's reply, as well, is confusing, and also unresponsive. They are either confused themselves, or they are being evasive. Happy to assume the former, but lessons ought to be learned from this, which I'm not sure has happened based on their responses here thus far. El_C 13:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I should have made it clear that I was trying to give Hawkeye7 an explanation of why the IP user might have reverted the extra versions rather than trying to explain Hawkeye7's response which I admit to being confused by as well. Gusfriend (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hawkeye7 is still editing, however at this point they seem disinclined to participate any further in this thread. I’m still concerned over their commentary about IPs. Canterbury Tail talk 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is so dynamic that mere page protection seems insufficient. There may be some legitimate edits tucked in here, but it also looks like there are hundreds of unsourced and possibly disruptive contributions. May need deep reverting to return to a stable version. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has already requested a page protection. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already protected it, based on the request at RFPP. --Jayron32 14:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:601:400:9840:0:0:0:E1F8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Has been reported at WP:AIV but is on a rampage, vandalizing several pages per minute. Please block them. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Jayron32 14:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across user:Sirio today while patrolling newpages, specifically after coming across Dewesoft which is nothing more than a raging advertisement that they've recreated twice today. This lead me to their talk page that had a completely unreasonable outburst and multiple personal attacks:

FUCK YOU, I DIDN'T FINISH EDITING THE PAGE, ADDING REFERENCES AND MORE DATA, AND YOU TELL ME I'M DOING A PROMOTION? SO ALL WIKIPEDIA IS PROMOTION, ADVERTISING AND FAKE NEWS. DON'T BOTHER ME AND LET ME DO MY JOB. Sirio (talk) 3:17 pm, Today (UTC−4)diff

You get paid by wikipedia to fuck around and censor articles written by volunteers who waste time like me. No one pays me to waste time with your stupidities, your censorship will not change this. Sirio (talk) 4:19 pm, Today (UTC−4) diff

and now a legal threat and personal attack: If you have mental problems, you must attach verified evidence, to verify and corroborate before a prosecutor, that the Dewesoft Wikipedia article can be taken as financed advertising, and my link as a user in this regard. One Fact: My IP address is from Argentina, so you will have to prove in your complaint to the court, the way in which the Dewesoft company, from Slovenia, has contacted me, to "promote their page". Sirio (talk) 6:41 pm, Today (UTC−4) diff

I don't know whether they're actually here to contribute or not but it's clear their behavior is unacceptable and not conducive to a collaborative environment and it doesn't appear that a discussion is even possible given their over reaction and insults. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They have been indef blocked by Blablubbs. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And now they have posted a very WP:NOTTHEM unblock request. Perhaps it should be declined ASAP. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  LET ME DO MY JOB'? What does that mean? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Crikey! I need a raise! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you found that funny, you should see what Sirio's second unblock request is. Very textbook WP:EBUR. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 67.70.154.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2605:B100:13D:BA34:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:935B:C500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 74.15.92.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 184.151.190.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 184.145.26.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.138.63.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.50.135.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Today, more Canada IPs jumped into the long-term disruption at music and TV articles, especially ones about the Wiggles.[52][53] Can we block the range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64 and the IP Special:Contributions/184.151.190.98? They have been removing valid text and references, for instance at Diamantina Cocktail where they also asserted that an Australian band changed to American.[54][55]

Yesterday, the IP Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:CCB3:11FC:96F8:3CCF was blocked but the whole /64 should get a lengthy block, or even a larger range to prevent future disruption. Ten days ago the similar range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935B:C500:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for three months. Ohnoitsjamie set a year-long rangeblock on Special:Contributions/67.70.154.0/24 last September. This person has been at it for a long time, using IPs from Canada, mostly from the province of Ontario. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ohnoitsjamie set a two-week rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64. Ad Orientum put a 31-hour block on Special:Contributions/184.151.190.98. Lengthier blocks are needed. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Nathaniel Bapelaa II (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DJ Arch Jnr/archive1 by copy/pasting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaliyah/archive1. I then marked the page with {{Db-g2}} and placed a comment about the copy/paste at the top of the page. That user then reverted my edit, and further tried to hide the copy/paste by some random changes to the text and removed my notice on their talk page. What's to be done? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the removal of speedy deletion template and it is already deleted now. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 06:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Nathaniel Bapelaa II has now been blocked for some fairly obvious abuse of multiple accounts. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1700:64C:1000:2832:264C:FD8C:7649 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Needs thier TPA removed diff (and probbably also revision deleted) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorted by El C. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor 2603:8080:4700:C964:F518:8DB:DB47:BEDF is constantly removing the header from the sandbox, which I believe is against the rules. See these diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089026964&oldid=1089026730 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089026357&oldid=1089026319 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1088951878 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it looks like they added the nobots template which prevents the bot that reinserts the sandbox header from editing the sandbox. 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There they go again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089032226&oldid=1089031657

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089032226&oldid=1089031657

Notice how they keep adding the nobot tag. 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for User:Hazard-Bot to obey {{nobots}} in Wikipedia:Sandbox, I wonder? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please stop Joel binu from repeatedly asking the same question on my talk page again and again, after having been reverted and asked not to do so further? [56] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Joel_binu#Indefinite_block. El_C 14:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:SPA's JaztoSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only post is this. The WP:ASPERSION stuff has been ongoing for some time. I do not remember what the SOP is in dealing with them. At the very least they are a sock but I wouldn't know who to file the SPI against. If this report should have been filed somewhere else please feel free to move it. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious LTA and should just be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's someone from Wikipediocracy (who is probably still an editor or two or three here; I have my suspicions but insufficient evidence for SPI) who is part of a conspiracy theory about Flyer22. Crap like this should just be nuked from orbit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing continues to levy personal attacks in edit summaries, the latest being this one [60]. This user has been blocked in the past (the latest being last month). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you issue a petty warning template to a regular editor you're in a dispute with (after reverting good faith edits with no explanation, ironically disruptive), and said regular editor makes it clear that petty warning templates aren't appreciated, a second template for reverting back to a version that you yourself wanted it to be at (last stable version without reference removal), is nothing but an attempt to provoke a reaction. Telling you to grow the fuck up was unnecessary and I shouldn't have said it, but uncollaborative actions usually get uncollaborative reactions. – ².O.^Boxing 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon you two, lets keep it within the Queensberry Rules and shake hands. We don't want anyone to be initiated into the Silly Buggers Society. Maybe someone above my paygrade can drop a friendly note on SCB's talkpage about WP:NPA and close this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can get the ref's from Battlebots. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FaridK12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FaridK12 is a new editor who's entire editing history revolves around massive copyright violations and they continue to create them. Literally every creation and major edit is a copyright violation, both here and on azwiki. I've asked them to stop editing directly in mainspace in an attempt to clean up some of the mess but they don't appear to be listening. See below:

• International Culinary Festival is a translated copyvio of the provided link (and from azwiki)
• Karabakh Foundation copyvio
• Cultural Heritage of Karabakh copyvio
• Draft:Historical and cultural monuments of Karabakh copyvio
• copyvio to an existing article second part of said copyvio
• adding more copyvio after I already warned them

It doesn't appear they are capable of listening, so I'm asking either for an outright indef or a full, indefinite block from mainspace (though I'm not sure how this will play out since they create copyvios in draft space too.) PRAXIDICAE💕 19:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've deleted all of their articles. My inclination is to simply indef, as they have posted that they have "paraphrased" the information on the articles when s simple translation will show that (certainly on the one I looked at) they're exactly the same. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, their entire contribution history on all three projects they've edited (azwiki, commons and here) are all 100% copyright violations. I don't see any good in keeping them unblocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just looked at Commons. I don't think there's any point leaving them unblocked. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I have independently verified that there are major copyright concerns global lock request has been filed at m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_FaridK12. Praxicidae has notified the azwiki admin White Demon (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) at azwiki, and 16 out of 27 articles at azwiki have already been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have Persecution of Yazidis but Aronyu is keen on having Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds as well. There's just one problem, the second article mostly contains info that already exist in the first articel (sometimes rewritten but check the use of references and the historical dates) but also info that was removed years ago from different Wikipedia articles for being problematic or not NPOV. I have seen a couple of other Yazidi-related POVFORKS recently including Ezdiki language and Kurdification of Yazidis and Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds seems to be part of this group as well. Disruption on Yazidi topics has been going on since 2019 and it just keep continuing. Recent examples[61][62] I believe Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds should be a redirect and protected from editing. If the editor is genuine about expanding information, they can do that at Persecution of Yazidis.

I want to note that this user has been calling me disruptive and a POV-pusher since 2019[63] and they also reported me for vandalism that same year[64] It screams NOTHERE for me. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JosephUSSRStalinCCCP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a vandal who, aside from having a troublesome username, is inserting Kremlin propaganda into articles and making other disruptive edits. They only have four edits, but each one was vandalism. — Czello 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef by 331dot (talk · contribs). — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 11:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh out of their month-long block from WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Jstar_Ahmed, User:Jstar Ahmed has immediately resumed adding unsourced and poorly sourced fan language to Uttam Kumar and two film articles.

• fan language sourced by blog post: [65]
• same fan language, sourced by another blog post: [66]
• unsourced fan language, pasted from a copyrighted blog post: [67]
• unsourced claims of awards: [68]
• claim of award sourced by bogus reference that makes no such claim: [69]
• unsourced fan language: [70]
• unsourced fan language for "Remake" section: [71]
• unsourced film credits: [72]

I've indeffed them for the repeated unsourced content. If this the someone on mobile, hopefully they will request an unblock on their talk page to understand what is going on. If not, then they are just ignoring repeated warnings, and the indef is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Itsabhisheksood

This individual ought to be blocked as a spam-only account. Here are all of his/her edits:

1. [73] Replaces a rotten URL with a link to a completely different website
2. [74] Links a page with a description suggesting that it explains how cardiologists do their job, but it really lists "5 best cardiologists" in a specific city in India
3. [75] Links a page that's not working anymore, but it's quickly reverted with a spam warning, and the link looks like the previous and the next edits
4. [76] Links a page with a description suggesting that it explains more about bronchoscopy, but it's really just the cost of bronchoscopy in the same city in India
5. [77] and [78] Adds nonsense content with a "reference" to https://po4life.com, a blog talking about specific batteries

The talk page shows that this user previously created a userpage that was speedy deleted.

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism says not to report people there if they're likely to disrupt in the immediate future. This account's edits have been spread out over three years (2019, 2021, and 2022), so if the account isn't blocked, the next spammy edits may not happen until several months from now. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted userpage leaves no doubt. Blocked. MER-C 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor Johnbendenz is disruptively editing multiple pages and placing random redirects on the pages like Man Singh Tomar, Chauhan etc. He is doing it even after final warning. He is also removing PROD tag from the article he created i.e. Bhadana Kingdom despite mentioning not to do so in edit history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who is Might be Rajput and with the (Id SajayPal007) who is might be a paid Rajput Shudra editor intentionally deleted Sources, references, Linkings,Images ,citation even text from My pages Including Bhadana kingdom, bhadana clan, Hun clan and kassana clan how he can remove sources, links, citation,refrences ,images and gategories and all related stuff even these all pages were proved by Wikipedia guidlines and met all the requirmnets of wikipedia please do Acknokledge why this Guy is associating Chauhan Clan, Tomara and paramaana of controversial pages with rajput? with one single group? these all chauhan paramara tomara were multicultural multi ethnicity surnames why he is doing all this with fully biasness? there are no old references or sources of the origin of chauhan tomara paramara associated with rajput or single group why he is doing all this with fully bias? Chauhan Tomara Paramar all are controversial and multicultural, multi religious and ethnicity clans they belongs to jatt Gurjars as well as with Rajput and Dalits Dear adminstrators please do review on the controversial pages( paramara dynasty, tomarana dynasty and chauhan dynasty) also do review on my proved pages by wikipedia guidelines and were removed by This rajput Guy (sajaypal007) Intetentionaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbendenz (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the edits of Johnbendenz and they look very worrisome. At least disruptive, but vandalism comes also in my mind. The Banner talk 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to block this editor from damaging article space. Johnbendenz, editing Wikipedia is not a game. First of all, articles and comments need to written in correct English. Second, sourcing must follow guidelines in WP:RS. Thirdly, and you may not have known this but you know it now, please see this, Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Looks like you edit- block(?)-conflicted with Drmies there... (two minutes between entries in the block log). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syrriana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite several warnings on the user's talk page, the user continued to add WP:CRYSTAL info, see latest edits in 2022 Indian Rajya Sabha elections history. The user put edit summaries such as "@DaxServer you are aware of the fact that The Aam Aadmi Party has 2/3 majority in the assembly. Due to this the rest two seats are sureshots seats of Aam Aadmi Party." [79] This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't belong in WP until it happened, aka the candidates are elected to be the next MP, unanimously or otherwise. I've asked the user explicitly not to add these info anymore a few hours ago. I believe I've already made three reverts related to this user in this context, so this would also double up as WP:EW — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point them to Dewey defeats Truman. 80.247.18.115 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or is WP:AN3 a better venue? Not quite sure — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [80], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[81]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[82] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Context thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This was debated for 7 months at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles.
• Another 4 months of debate occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This proposal came out after above debates and discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies the proposal was advertised as advised by the the debate participants of that time at WP:Noticeboard for India#Assembly_constituencies_article_title, |WP:Noticeboard for India# Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like WikiProject Delhi#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies [83] [84] and so on.
• A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified.
• After 2 months of voting on the proposal there was a Consensus with 7 supports and one oppose. After the discussion had petered out with clear consensus, The proposal was implemented accordingly. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[85] which you recognized[86] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
  • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]