I reverted this edit by 2603:7000:2101:aa00:d5ae:2d16:b03b:9c46, who then told me on my talk page that I had to provide a reliable source for the content I restored per WP:BURDEN. After some more discussion, I decided to go here because I'm not entirely sure of the best course of action since the IP's only contributions that aren't to my talkpage are removing uncited content, much of which they said was OR [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (the one I reverted) [6] [7] [8] [9]] [10]. ‍ Relativity 01:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

My IP address changes all the time, so (as you might have anticipated by my referring to the wp rules), I have edited more than the edits you point to. But I'm unclear what your question is. Whether you have to comply with wp:burden, and what it requires? I've already discussed that with you at length on your talk page. Do you still believe you do not have to do so? And if so, why do you bring that question here? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am bringing it here because I am seeing a lot of content removal from your end, and I just don't know whether to restore it or leave it as be. ‍ Relativity 01:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I already discussed this with you at length on your talk page. Citing wp:burden to you. Quoting from wp:burden to you. I'm unclear what your struggle is with, in understanding that per wp:burden you are welcome to restore the uncited material - but with appropriate RS refs. Which you have not added, though you restored the uncited material. Or why you believe that ANI is the appropriate place to discuss it. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, alright, after seeing your comments, what if I self-revert, but you have to put a copy of the content you removed on that article's talk page and we'll try to find reliable sources for it? (I'll do it if you agree, so I'm just waiting for your response) ‍ Relativity 02:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not a requirement of wp:burden, and is not normal at wp. Feel free to self-revert, so you are in compliance with wp:burden. Feel free to restore any such content with RS refs that comply with wp:burden. As the word "burden" implies, there is a burden here - and it is on you, if you wish to restore such content - with appropriate refs. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not normal, but WP:IAR since this would actually help improve Wikipedia and solve this dispute. ‍ Relativity 03:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no dispute here. You're ignoring wp:burden. By insisting that the burden is on others. And bringing your desire that wp:burden would impose burdens on others, in the manner your personally prefer, that is at odds with what the rule clearly says, to a forum that is certainly not a place to bring it and waste the time of others who are trying to address matters of greater moment than your desire to ignore a clear rule. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

From an outsider's POV, the best course of action is for someone to remove the restoration per WP:BURDEN as The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and then open a discussion the removed content on the talk page if they want, but the IP is under no obligation to discuss it. JM (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. My sincere apologies to the IP user. ‍ Relativity 04:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh and also you can verify it yourself without even needing to discuss it and restore it to the article with verification, because that would satisfy WP:BURDEN. JM (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait a moment. The responsibility to confirm whether the added text is backed by the source rests with @Relativity. However, in instances where the added text lacks citations, someone may choose to either delete the text, request references, or insert a Citation needed template and wait for a couple of weeks. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Cinadon36 12:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is. I'm just saying that they could find the references and then restore it themselves since it would then satisfy BURDEN and V since it's been verified by the person restoring it. JM (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree, @JM2023. Cinadon36 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest to all parties involved that, absent potentially libelous material posted in a BLP, it is almost always better to start by adding a {{citation needed}} tag where the content is relatively longstanding, to give fair warning that said content may be removed in the near future. BD2412 T 01:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Long standing or not the original IP editor thought this content was wrong, not just missing a citation. It's not a situation where they were removing all unreferenced text, only select parts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat made here. Warned to recant but ignored. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that the legal threat is problematic, I will note that this discussion was opened only 9 minutes after the WP:NLT warning was given. I'd allow a bit more time for the user to respond. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: They made two further comments on their talk page since the warning even threatening to "deal with it outside Wikipedia" which still feels like a veiled legal threat. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Any uninvolved admin may undo the block after the legal threat has been withdrawn. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@LLC226699 User tends to make unsourced changes or changes with not reliable sources , reverting already reverted edits and other edits multiple times without discussion. Not replying or discussing anything about the subject , and not explaining the reason behind changes. Not responsive in the talk page while being active. Made edits in List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces page. Can you do something about please ? IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

2601:183:4B82:E70:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been repeatedly removing talk page comments from Talk:WTIC-FM with no explanation, and has done so again despite a final warning. They have also been persistently restoring their (often unsourced) changes to Connecticut road articles. As is required, I have notified the most recent IP, 2601:183:4b82:e70:7c8c:2358:4392:1613 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, they shifted to ‎2601:183:4b82:e70:d05d:9ef7:a423:9b63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) before I could post. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked 2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 for a week. Next time, please ask for assistance before reverting more than three times. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this and the problems seem too deep for me to do it alone, but the Cinema of Egypt article is riddled with direct copyright violations going back months. Crimsonalfred2022 has been adding material since October and much of it appears to be copyright violations based on google translations of the articles used in the reference. I removed this section and this both are word for word what google translate says in the references themselves. I don't know how far back the edits go so I don't know how to make a revdel request for them. There are probably far more instances but this is beyond me to do alone. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that Crimsonalfred2022 was previously notified about copyright policy on 30 October 2023 ([11]). (Less urgently, also notified shortly after about copying within Wikipedia, [12].) R Prazeres (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For complex copyright problems, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Use Template:Copyvio (you will need to subst:). The resulting template will include instructions for filing the report. -- Whpq (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the user's additions going back to December 20, as the amount of copyvio is too massive to stand. There's also numerous potentially copyright uploads (around 90 files) added to the Commons, many of which will need to be deleted, so I've posted at their administrator noticeboard that all their uploads need to be checked too. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Βατο (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks here [13] Now I have enough experience to realize your contribution in Wikipedia is just disruptive editing. And I will not waste more time with you here. I'll expand the article and summarize later its content in the lede. And your disruption, as always, will be trivial. It sounds like he is basically announcing his intent to edit-war without further discussion. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not announcing an intent to edit-war without discussion, I stated that I'll expand the article with sources, and then summarise its content in the lede. As for the "disruption", you removed sourced content from the lead section keeping only one of the two academic views on the subject of the article without proper explanation. You have already tried it, unsuccessfully, in several articles before. – Βατο (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have explained everything regarding the content in the talkpage and anyone can see that. But your comment is very much a personal attack and needs to be brought to the community's attention. Khirurg (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The only explanation you gave is this one [14]: The lede should be neutral and not promote one narrative over another. That he was an "Illyrian chieftain" is just one hypothesis. There are others as well. By making "Illyrian" the seventh word in the article, you are promoting one narrative over another. That is the very definition of POV-pushing. which actually is in contradiction with your edit because you removed only one of the two academic views on the subject of the article, and which includes also aspersions of POV pushing when that's not the case at all. – Βατο (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your edit because I thought it promoted one narrative over another. I stand by that. The issue here is your absolutely uncollaborative and downright contemptuous response. Let me remind you that collaboration is one of the five pillars of wikipedia and is not "optional". Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Which is your "collaboration"? The removal of one of the two competing academic views on the subject of the article? As per WP:NPOV: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." – Βατο (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is not negotiable, and the text I removed was the opposite of NPOV Sirras or Sirrhas (Ancient Greek: Σίρρας; d. 390 BC) was either an Illyrian chieftain by making the word "Illyrian" the seventh word to appear in the lede, even though all sources state that this individual's ancestry is disputed. But the issue is not the content, but your contemptuous, uncollaborative behavior. There is also the earlier attempt by you to intimidate another editor by placing a bogus 3RR-warring tag on their talkpage [15], even though the user had only one revert (same as you). The issue here is your behavior, about which you haven't shown the slightest hint of self-reflection. Khirurg (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The description: [Sirras] was either an Illyrian chieftain or a prince-regent of Lynkestis is what bibliography support. You removed the Illyrian affiliation and kept the Lynkestian one, breaking the WP:Neutral point of view of the lead sentence. The breaking of one of the pillars of Wikipedia, which is a 'non-negotiable' policy, can be labelled as "distruption". – Βατο (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Do you really believe an admin would "deal with this"? There is nothing an admin can do apart from telling you to open an RfC to sort out your content disputes through community input. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am continuing to discuss in the talkpage, but when one user announces they are done discussing, we have a problem, and admin intervention is necessary. Khirurg (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I completely understand Bato’s frustration here. Khirurg and I are regularly engaged in content disputes across a number of articles revolving around Albanians and Greeks, and he has even followed me around on pages revolving around Albanian articles that have nothing to do with Greece (by that, I mean articles which he has never edited on or shown interest in). There is a lot of back and forth, incivility, bad blood etc, and I think it is double-standards for Khirurg to report another editor for personal attacks. To help paint himself as a victim even though he treats fellow editors with much incivility and disrespect, he also created a collection of what he calls taunts.
• I get Bato’s frustration at Khirurg’s history of disruptive behaviour on articles. There is evidence of him reverting me on articles just for the sake of it, such as here [16], where it was apparent that he didn’t read the source and just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion, where he admitted that the source was falsified in the past [17] but he clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion despite the reverts. Another noteworthy example of Khirurg reverting me without looking at the sources (or intentionally falsifying content, that's the only alternative) can be found here [18], and I brought it to his attention both in the edit summary and my subsequent comments on the TP [19][20]. This type of disruptive behaviour can be really obstructive at times and is definitely not done in WP:GOODFAITH, as source falsification and reverting for the sake of reverting are not actions associated with good faith editing. Khirurg would seem to have a natural disposition towards opposing particular editors that they continuously come into conflict with, or opposing content revolving around Albanians - I am not sure why this is, but I completely understand Bato’s frustration. I hope admins are made aware of the type of disruptive behaviour that Khirurg regularly exhibits that would’ve provoked Bato into writing what they did. It’s not even that much of a personal attack, it’s an honest observation of his behaviour on certain articles. Botushali (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:STALK, WP:ASPERSIONS. Nothing new here, just the usual stalking and smearing. 3 kb of text at that. Also pretty rich coming from someone with a 3 month block [21]. Khirurg (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting reaction from someone who is currently reporting another user for personal attacks… Botushali (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Finally Khirurg got the point [22] and restored one of the two academic views. But how much time was wasted for it? How much discomfort he provoced to other editors? As explained by Botushali above from his own experience, this behavior by Khirurg is not something new. I've experienced it for a long time now. Many of his reverts definitely are not necessary at all. As are the walls of text produced in article's talk pages just for a revert made by him, who often contributes to the article with little or nothing other than the revert itself. Also in this case, at the end of the day, my remark and your disruption, as always, will be trivial went as expected. – Βατο (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the disruption by you is far from trivial [23]. This is completely undue in the section heading and there isn't a single wikipedia article where an individual's (disputed) ethnicity is included in the section heading. It is deplorable that every attempt at compromise is derided and mocked, and leads to even more egregious POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you talking about individual's (disputed) ethnicity? No ethnicity is included in that section heading. That section is all about the widely supported theory of the identification of Sirras with the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian war. You cannot omit the 'Illyrian chieftain' label in the heading of that section, because the entire section is based on that. You see POV where there is no POV at all. But a possible simple solution to your concern is to reword it "as a Chieftain of the Illyrian army", not to completely remove it, because it is an information essential for the description of that section. – Βατο (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not "essential" at all, unless the goal is to push POV. It's possible, but far from certain, that he is the Illyrian chieftain that participated in the Peloponnesian war. The section heading should be neutral, and that's non-negotiable. Whether he is the Illyrian chieftain is to be discussed in the body text, not in the section heading. Unless of course, the goal is to just make the word "Illyrian" as prominent as possible at the expense of neutrality. Khirurg (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The scholars' theory illustrated in that section is "Sirras was the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian War". You have to find a neutral wording to provide the full description of that theory. If you omit some parts, it is not the scholars' theory. – Βατο (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The hypothesis of some scholars is that Sirras was possibly the Illyrian chieftain that participated in the Peloponnesian war. Explaining that is what the text of the section is for, not the section heading. I am confident no neutral wikipedia users will back the heading you are proposing. Khirurg (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the hypothesis. If he was not the Illyrian chieftain, there is no historical basis for his participation in that war. I think it's clear. – Βατο (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  So "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War" is a perfectly neutral section heading. Khirurg (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The theory is not about "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War", but about "Sirras as the presumable chieftain of Illyrians in the Peloponnesian War". You fail to see my point. I asked for other editors' suggestions in the relevant talk page. – Βατο (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is not an encyclopedic section heading. Repeating what is in the first sentence in the section heading is not what section headings are for. Khirurg (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Initially your issue was with ethnicity in section heading, then when I explained that it is not about ethnicity you changed your concern to 'hypothetical information', and now you change it to 'unencyclopaedic heading'? Not mentioning the full description of the hypothesis is misleading because there is no historical basis that the subject of the article participated in that war as a chieftain of an army other than Illyrian, the hypothesis is strictly related to that information. Anyway, I don't expect you to change your mind, I am waiting for other editors' thought on the relevant talk page. – Βατο (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This user Any mail have been disrupting and removing sourced contents in articles, he has been warned by many editors but still continue the same thing.examples: [24][25][26][27][28][29] [30] removed restored content [31] deleted the article[32] [33][34][35] and many more.I hope care will be taken quickly. Yotrages (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) This was previously posted on the 7th, but was achieved without comment (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Edit warring). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't notified Any mail (talk · contribs) of this report specifically (only the possibility of being reported here). I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content; too much detail (see [36]) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please inform the user on their talk page when doing this, I did it for you. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Replying to you on this one too. Nothing I added is unsourced, for everything I add I make sure to include several local and reputable sources to back up the information given. It may be persistent but that is because you keep removing the information even though it comes from legit sources including the station's website. If you didn't remove the information without asking then it wouldn't be "persistent". PR2021 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• You should have put a talk page message up before dragging them to ANI. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: By addition of the unsourced content, do you mean this section: WLII-DT#En Alerta (2024-present) (which you had reverted)? Because it seems well sourced to me. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

LuckyLouie & Rjjiii have repeatedly reverted into the article information which is prohibited by OR. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen applied a block to my editing at Westall UFO when constructive Talks were continuing between myself and Rjjiii in response to the needs of policy. This has caused the problems of OR with the article to be maintained within the article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussions are here, from 3 January 2024 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

LuckyLouie & Rjjiii are now both propounding "Skeptoid" as a source, but I have already indicated ("Dunning investigation/verification" in Talk) the proofs of this reference having obvious errors within it which would discount it's use. Both editors are obviously biased against the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event, as is shown at Talk:Westall UFO#Sources. Their position currently therefore isn't Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No. You are simply wrong, and Bishonen was perfectly justified in taking that action. Your talk was not constructive. The neutral point of view is that the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event is impossible, even if we don't know what that rational explanation is. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In the first instance and to re-iterate, the problem is OR. You state your opinion I state to you in reply, the problem is OR in the article. That is why I opened the discussion here. What is your response specifically and only, firstly, to the problem that I indicated? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Both editors are obviously biased against the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event is not a violation of NPOV, it is clearly following WP:FRINGE policy. The filer, on the other hand... Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I already indicated no-one is propounding a theory, the suggestion of UFO is within the idea of fringe theory, but there aren't any theoreticians present to state theory. This is observable at Talk:Westall UFO 8 January 2024 "Your question necessitates that it is a fringe theory". That is what I found, it isn't my opinion without giving reasons so stating you disgree without discussing the sources isn't a reason, it is just an opinion that you think I am wrong. I would like to be convinced that other editors are correct and I am wrong, but no-one is providing evidence from the sources, which explictly details how I am wrong, in discussion of the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note: there is an extensive discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard of the issue over which I page-blocked Simpul skitsofreeneea. Bishonen | tålk 18:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC).

And Timeline of schizophrenia is a fringe theory, amd I am a fringe theory, for the article and my username to be discussed there under that heading? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What..? I just noticed that Simpul skitsofreeneea has now further forumshopped the Westall UFO issue to WP:NORN. Simpul skitsofreeneea, you are seriously wasting your own time as well as everybody else's. Please stay at one board! (The FTN discussion is by a comfortable margin the oldest.) Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC).

Trying to continue their arguments here, since they're blocked from the article and its talk page, is simply continuing the disruption. Simpul's talk page indicates that they've had issues in multiple topic areas. I think they have good intentions, but their response on their talk page about passive smoking and their comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of schizophrenia are so idiosyncratic that I question whether they can adapt to Wikipedia's mores. Perhaps there's a language issue?

(I linked to pages rather than diffs because Simpul collates multiple edits into a single paragraph with timestamps interspersed.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I indicated the topic for discussion. You think the topic is me so the discussion is irrelevant. The topic is OR in the article. I provided the evidence of OR which is observable by reviewing my changes to find the same evidence that I found, or not. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If editors don't think my notice here is possible, which is evidence of OR and this is the opportunity to find the proof that the article does or doesn't contain OR to legitimately close this discussion: I filed this notice, not there is a discussion of whether I am someone who could file the notice, I'll have to proceed to file it to the next process in the dispute. All I ask for is observation of if or not OR exists in the article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My concerns are shown above in the introductory statements. If editors could respond direcly to those statements then I will receive a response to this notice. That is all. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am stating: prohibited by OR, is the problem, as is observable at the OR noticeboard Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not prohibited by WP:NOR, but your position is prohibited by WP:FRINGE. The reason that it is difficult to find any debunking of your position is simply that reliable sources do not write about such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm re-explaining now the problem of OR: under the section Reports: contains information which is isn't found in the references. That is the problem of OR. I showed this is the case on the Talk page. This means that under Reports is stated details about Westall which have no source to verify is anything at all to do with what happened at Westall. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is language. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is clearly competence, or rather the lack of it. To be blunt, regardless of the ultimate cause, I cannot see how anyone who could post the rambling mess that is Simpul skitsofreeneea's response to my AfD nomination [37] can usefully contribute to a collaborative project. As to whether this is at least in part a language issue, it may possibly be, but it makes no functional difference either way. We cannot be expected to have to wade through rambling walls-of-text comments like that, regardless of why they are written, and it appears that this is Simpul skitsofreeneea's standard form of response to any criticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading the comments regarding Simpul skitsofreeneea's block for disruption at Simple English Wikipedia is worthwhile. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am User: Simpul skitsofreeneea. I opened this discussion because of the problem of OR in the article Westall UFO. If you'd like to turn your attention to the top of the section, you will see the introductory comments on the topic of this discussion. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Within a certain period of time if no-one thinks my statements that there is a policy breach in the Westall UFO article necessitates a response of adherence to policy then I will determine no-one currently participating in the discussion understands the need for policy. You can see I make acusations against Rjjiii in the introductory statememts, but Rjjiii continued to relocate the source for part of the OR problem so that partially exonerates Rjjiii. We could all observe this exonerative situation by the existence of reference 3 in the article of which the route for inlcusion is shown in Talk where-by Rjjiii has indicated the existence of the source. That is indicative of a problem-solution response. Im am currently stating the problem here. The incident is OR as I demonstrated (and re-iterate currently without proof or disproof from reviewing editors) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly tried to use this document as a source:[38] It is a collection of summaries of eyewitness interviews by a 1960s ufologist, compiled by other ufologists. When I asked if they thought it met the guidelines at WP:FRIND, they replied "Succintly, no" followed by 700 barely coherent words arguing for its inclusion.[39] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is OR I indicated the nature, details, places to look to verify the details, to deal with the problem which is filed under this Notice. I request that you notice (you see, you observe, you view, you perceive) what I am stating is the problem.

Since you did notice previously I provide this response: That is not true. If you would like to observe "succintly no because there isn't category: physics in the article, if it were that JE McDonald (JEM) or Kirk T McDonald (KTM) had proposed a theory from their scientific positions." is the exact of what was written as a response. Which is the succinct reason, that fringe does not apply (at the 1st paragraph, not the section which you directed me to look at to then indicate whether of not the source could be used under the conditional considerations of that part of policy).

I already indicated the problem of stating fringe theory in Talk which is there aren't any theoreticians, the suggestion that theory exists therefore a fringe theory exists would depend on the explicit statement of a theoretical expalantion for something in reality of which the subjet of the theory isn't stated for anything to be a fringe theory within. No one is stating a theory and no-one of any field is stating anything. The source 228 belongs,as I already showed to Kirk T McDonald Professor Emeritus of High Energy Physis University Princeton. That doesn't indicate he is theorizing on the subject. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE? It's difficult to follow their comments and understand what they are trying to say. I could understand a language barrier but I think it's more the inability for them to understand the policies being explained to them or the willful ignoring of what is being explained. --ARoseWolf 21:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't seem to be understanding what everyome is stating that is true. That is because I am stating the problem is OR in various re-iterations in various comments and no-one is responding to my notice. You would also like to enter into discussion of me as the suject. Do you see I filed myself as the problem as incident? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Am I filing some suggestion you cannot understand. The article contains information which isn't observable. I do not see the information in the sources. Does anyone else see the information in the sources? That is why this incident section was begun because I filed incident if I see continuation of the problem is me, without recognition of the possibility that the incident I am filing is true (without any investigation of why false and non verifiable information exists in the article Westall UFO I will have to file every editor present to the next process of dispute. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Simpul skitsofreeneea, this noticeboard is for behavioral/conduct issues. When an editor opens a complaint, their conduct is open to review as well. Other editors examine the complaint and its context, which includes your conduct on Wikipedia. Multiple editors have brought different problems with your editing conduct to your attention, but you don't seem to be grasping any of the feedback. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  So logially the problem is the Westall article I made edits which were reverted by the editors shown in the 1st statement. What I'm stating is that in all three reverts the editors returned information which is prohibited by OR. That is what I am stating. What is your response to my accusation? Your presumption that all the comments against me have a value which I'm ignoring is simulataneoulsy an ignoring of my comments of "prohoited by OR" is the reality. So you state I should take notice of the feedback, but you or anyone else didn't verfiy the reality of the editorial situation whether or not the two reverting editors should have reverted the information into the article, now to find a block in place (still without investigating whether or not the OR problem exists); what the actual reality of the article is with regards to why I chose to make the changes. In the last revert all I did was remove the parts which were OR, to then be reverted again, then, after a brief discussion, blocked. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to help Simpul skitsofreeneea at Talk: Westall UFO (now archived), but they would have none of it. The unrelenting, disruptive combination of WP:IDHT, WP:TE, competency issues, and aspersions (see my post here for additional examples of their personal attacks) indicates that Simpul skitsofreeneea is clearly WP:NOTHERE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enough of this. I've blocked Simpul skitsofreeneea for multiple reasons. Feel free to pick your favorite. Maybe they can convince another admin that they have a WP:CLUE, but I'm not seeing it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because Simpul skitsofreeneea has continued their repetitive ramblings on their talk page, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This weird concoction Draft:The Car Accident Lawyers, presumably just ADMASQ, keeps being created by IP users, all sharing the same ISP and creating the same content, so clearly one individual or a small group. I've requested the title to be salted, which should (hopefully) put an end to it, but they're now also spamming AFCHD. Their earlier IPv4 range (47.11.206.1 etc.) has been blocked for a week by HJ Mitchell. They've now moved to IPv6, with addresses (so far)

• 2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6
• 2409:40E1:26:2FA9:D815:28FF:FEB0:DC68
• 2409:40E1:CD:8728:8080:CFFF:FED9:352F

Could these be blocked as well, please?

(I have notified one, but only one, of the IPs of this discussion, pointless as that probably was.)

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They are now also blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

re: [40] and [41] I think tpa should be reviewed/revoked.  // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That has been done by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That was me. I revoked TPA and then had to respond to something off-Wikipedia. Checking in now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know if the conduct of A.Musketeer and myself at Talk:Bangladesh genocide#RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide is appropriate or disruptive.

1. A.Musketeer has reverted my attempt to move what I think are pretty obviously !votes from the Discussion section to the Survey section. They didn't respond when I asked why they considered them "comments, not !votes".
2. A.Musketeer has accused me of canvassing by pinging all (unblocked) editors that participated in the last RfC about this article and has placed a canvassing tag on Volunteer Marek's !vote. I think that my pings were entirely appropriate and satisfy WP:APPNOTE, which states that I'm allowed to notify [e]ditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. My pings were neutrally worded, I pinged all participants of the RfC (not a "selective" group), and I just placed my comment at the bottom of the RfC (is there a better location to place it?).
3. A.Musketeer has made a personal attack against me: Your desperation is becoming more and more visible, Malerisch.
4. A.Musketeer has accused me of making passive attempts to besmirch the opposing editors to be Hindu nationalists. A.Musketeer is referring to this comment and the second paragraph of my !vote, in which I quoted news articles and a scholarly journal. What is the correct way to quote these articles, if I did so inappropriately? I have not called any editor a "Hindu nationalist", and I think that I have been entirely civil towards the other editors on the talk page. On the other hand, A.Musketeer has made uncited claims that opposing their position (that Bengali Muslims were not the victims of genocide) is "genocide denial" (1, 2).

Lastly, while this is not directly related to this RfC, I believe that A.Musketeer violated their TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed, with this edit to 2024 Bangladeshi general election (Hasina was just re-elected). Malerisch (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI, TarnishedPath has removed the Discussion header to resolve the first dispute. Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish and El C about the TBAN. Malerisch (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch, generally a RfC closer will look at the discussion as well as !votes to gauge the strengths of arguments for and against proposals, so I don't think the placement really mattered too much. For the sake of resolving that specific dispute I decided to be bold and just make everything part of the "survey" section. I hope that is a suitable resolution. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in—I don't have any issue with what you did. I'm aware that closers will read the whole discussion anyway, which is why I didn't force the issue. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know: A.Musketeer has been actively vandalizing contents related to the current geopolitical tensions in Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War despite being not from Bangladesh (they contribute mostly in the India-related articles). A.Musketeer has been previously blocked for waging edit-wars and have been community banned from editing contents (TBAN) related to Sheikh Hasina. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

• To provide context on the "Hindu nationalist" labelling — User:Wiki.arfazhxss and his sockpuppets, who have the same position in this dispute as Malerisch, have been continuously attacking the opposing editors, (in this case User:Nomian and myself), to be Hindu nationalist/Hindutva/Hindu far-right for pointing out the Bengali Hindus as the target in the genocide. There have been some off-wiki coordination as well to extend the attack. [42]. Malerisch then further provoked the sentiments by quoting certain contents on India's Hindu nationalist politics in the discussion, unrelated to the article, and associating my position with them. He used the same tactic in the RfC by quoting one of those articles and mentioning me and my position in the dispute.
• On Canvassing: Instead of notifying the editors on their user talk pages, Malerisch placed the comment below that of Lionel Messi Lover who supports Malerisch's position in the RfC and was describing the mention of Bengali Hindus as "misinformation" and "misrepresentation". Unsurprisingly, this resulted in a !vote by Volunteer Marek like this one.
• I'm not sure how merely talking about a desperation is a personal attack when the user is literally going after every editor who is !voting for the opposite position, even trying to manipulate others to change into their preferred !vote.
• My comment on genocide denial is misquoted here. I was referring to the general denial of the fact that "Bengali Hindus were targeted in the genocide" without referring to any editor. I had already quoted different sources to support my position. No idea how is that a personal attack and against whom?
• On TBAN: I was banned from Sheikh Hasina but not Bangladesh in general, neither from Bangladeshi politics. My edit was to add a maintenance template to the article and had nothing to do with Sheikh Hasina. The election is not just about Hasina but also about the election of 299 other constituents. I don't see that as a violation although I'd be happy to revert myself if an admin clarifies otherwise.

A.Musketeer (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Considering that Shohure Jagoron wrote Agreed, there seems to be no indication that would disqualify one or the other, and so it’s most logical to leave it as “Bengalis” in the former Discussion section, I can hardly be accused of trying to "manipulate" their opinion when it was always Bengalis—I was just trying to get them to clarify their !vote. I have directly replied to just two other !votes: yours and 74.12.97.59's, which is a far cry from literally going after every editor who is !voting for the opposite position. I only replied to other conversations because I was explicitly pinged by another editor and asked to comment. Malerisch (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A.Musketeer has a long history of going against anyone who opposes their view. Malerisch is not the first editor A.Musketeer attacked, and will not be the last editor. Coordinated efforts of Nomian and A.Musketeer has vandalized ALL the articles on Bangladeshi Liberation War. 103.184.172.37 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the IP after an unacceptable personal attack. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, a lot has been going on at a similar page. Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You're repeatedly trying to archive an ongoing thread, I don't know why. These threads have raised concerns about the current state of the article. So archiving these manually, even when the last comment was just 20 days ago, is a disruption in the conversion. Please refrain from doing these. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging editors just because they were pinged and didn't !vote you want them to, when there is no indication they were pinged because of their views, is kind of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Especially tagging people who had edited in this topic area going back a decade or so. So I think at least on that account User:Malerisch has a point about User:A.Musketeer. Volunteer Marek 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• A demonstration of the off-wiki coordination is there for everyone to see I guess. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • What in the world are you talking about? Volunteer Marek 07:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

    Musketeer is just accusing entire Bangladeshi editors at this point. This editor should be community-banned from ever editing any topic related to Bangladesh. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

TBAN[edit]

Can an admin either enforce the TBAN or leave a comment as to why they believe that editing an article that mentions Hasina 24 times (not including references), has Hasina's picture in the infobox, is linked in Template:Sheikh Hasina sidebar, and is being proposed at ITN/C with Hasina's photo and a blurb that names Hasina, doesn't constitute a violation of a TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed? Malerisch (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Admins in this forum are taking you seriously, Malerisch 88.239.17.21 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Your repeated pushing to enforce a false TBAN wouldn't change the fact that my edit to add a maintenance template had nothing to do with Sheikh Hasina but rather a standard procedure on an article about a nationally significant event in Bangladesh.
  I would also request the admins to take a closer look at the off-wiki coordination going on by these IP users and new accounts who are following Malerisch's lead in every page related to this dispute. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  A.Musketeer, it's a clear violation of your topic ban, and if it happens again you'll be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer in a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War[edit]

I would like to know whether A.Musketeer's edits in a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War Vandalism, Destructive or not.

A.Musketeer is also involved in "User conduct at Bangladesh Genocide Rfc and TBAN". After trying my best to have a discussion with him in the talk page to which he replied with constant whataboutism. So I felt it's pointless to argue further have recorded his vandalism in the article. Please take a look in the article and talk page, you'll understand the situation better.I

Here is the reply i gave in the talk page, here "you" is referring A.Musketeer.

== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ==

It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."

You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.

The source statement was,

Hindus were targeted the most

Your claim back by source is,

Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.

You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions.

In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,

“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80

In The Daily Star archive

Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'.

Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.

Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43⁽¹⁾ in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314^{(About 7,370,000 results)}, Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.^{(About 2,060,000 results)}

You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.

• On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed" You've removed 5 Quoted sources^{(none original or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209)} which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
• On your 2nd edit ^{edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed"} :You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
• On your 3rd edit ^{edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" :} You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims." with "The Pakistani elite believed that Hindus were behind the revolt and that as soon as there was a solution to the "Hindu problem" the conflict would resolve." And you edit description was NPOV balancing. You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
• On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega(description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
• On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim ""Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." but the source says "Hindus were targeted the most" It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women. Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation, which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead worked on them. You've reverted my edit saying "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician." But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel" so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
• ...

=== Others ===

You're misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.

You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.

• In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
• Your misinterpreted source is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salekin.sami36 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• 2001:1308:2C00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:1308:2D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• User:Elchezinazo
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elchezinazo

Elchezinazo was blocked five years ago but has evaded the block with sockpuppets and IPs from the Dominican Republic. Special:Contributions/186.149.133.80 was blocked a week ago along with a raft of socks. Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2D06:3500:3D67:19D1:6B7D:8154 was identified as a problem but was not blocked.

Since then, the Elchezinazo-style of disruption at articles has continued, focused on the music of Barry White. Several /64 ranges are involved so I am asking for larger ranges to be blocked, specifically Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 and Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2C00:0:0:0:0:0/40. Very little collateral damage would result from these large blocks. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling for prompt intervention on the repeated blanking of content (and the repeated addition of a rather comical hatnote "descendants of a country child and a foreigner") by User:Visnu92 in Peranakans, which had been subject to an edit war involving said user and placed on temporary protection. Discussions are ongoing in Talk:Peranakans#Should we transfer the 'lost' information into another article? and the related page move issue, but said user has continued with disruptive behaviour of blanking content after the expiry of page protection. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit annoying to have the page re-blanked despite the ongoing RM. (Courtesy ping to Ymblanter, protecting admin.) CMD (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

We probably want to hear from @Visnu92: here. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The article is misleading. As peranakan itself means descendent of local and foreigners. The foreigner can be Arab, Indians, and Portugese . It not Chinese alone. It's look like @HundenvonPenangare biased on this article. This article is under discussion and majority of the people agree that this article should not be on Chinese descendent alone. Visnu92 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This case is about your repeated massive blanking of content, much of which had been around for years and with sources, and your own edit-warring behaviour that resulted in Peranakans being protected, which you find it fit to resume after protection expired. Where is your claim of bias? Removing sourced content just because you think it's misleading? And should I even begin with your (potentially disparaging) joke of a hatnote "descendants of a country child and a foreigner"?

Said user didn't appear to have a basic understanding of what is a "country child". Hilarious. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Let it be put on record that in making the claim that I was "biased", Visnu92 deliberately ignored this comment I had made proposing NPOV & consensus moving forward from editors of Singapore, Malaysia & Indonesia.

In fact, Visnu92's edit-warring tendencies go back way before this issue, going by his edit history. Treating WP as a battlefield? Said user is simply WP:NOTHERE. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Having participated a little in the surrounding discussions I believe this is too harsh. I think Vishnu92 wants to improve Wikipedia, but struggles to collaborate with others. There has been a bit of a "my way or the highway" approach to this all, and it was very difficult to get Vishnu92 to start discussing things on the talk page. But now that they have stopped edit-warring and started to contribute to the discussion I think we can move forward. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

While the edit-warring in Peranakans has indeed ceased, Visnu92's past actions indicate persistent edit-warring tendencies & refusal to seek WP:CONS, let alone unexplained edits & zero WP:ES for most parts. Already, said user had been blocked on a separate ocassion for disruptive behaviour, along with a whole list of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing stretching back to at least 2012. Who is to say he won't revert to disruptive behaviour in the future?

My two cents: this merry-go-round of disruptive edit-warring & WP:NOTHERE from Visnu92 will persist, unless a more lasting action is taken against such behaviour. My case stands & I leave it to the wisdom of the admins to decide on the next course of action about said user. hundenvonPG (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, more participation in Talk:Peranakans#Requested move 6 January 2024 would be helpful. Nothing (despite the AN/I report) particularly contentious to wade through! CMD (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, second this, any additional input would be much appreciated. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Omnibenevolence has been systematically removing the names of places in Turkey in languages other than Turkish (e.g. [43][44][45]), citing MOS:LEADCLUTTER, yet at the same time adding Turkish names to the lead of other articles (e.g. [46]). Given the contentious status of minority languages in Turkey, I think this raises obvious POV issues, seemingly confirmed by Omnibenevolence describing languages such as Kurdish and Armenian (widely-spoken in parts of Turkey, but politically repressed) as foreign, not important and irrelevant in the above edit summaries, and on his talk page justifying his edits with Turkey is a single country with a single official language. The MOS:LEADCLUTTER excuse is a red herring – MOS:LEADLANG encourages adding relevant local names to the lead, and if the issue is 'clutter' then the guidelines suggest using a footnote, not excising them. The MOS guidelines could perhaps be clearer, but WP:NPOV is crystal.

Semsûrî and Uness232 tried to talk to them about this at User talk:Semsûrî#Recent place-name deletions and I tried at User talk:Omnibenevolence#Removal of non-Turkish names, but unfortunately they are sticking to their guns and edit-warring on individual articles.[47][48][49][50][51] There are already a lot of articles affected here, and I think admin intervention is needed to nip this in the bud. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you resorted to ANI immediately after being reasoned with in my talk page and being unable to find a response to both my points and Uness232's shows that you're a bad faith editor. I have only removed foreign names from the lead of cities where said alternative names (be it historical, foreign, etcetera) are expanded upon in their own sections (such as Name, Toponymy , History, Etymology, etcetera). The instances which you've shown as supposedly edit warring are not edit warring, and I refrained from my edits in Bingöl once my edit was reverted twice, and I reverted your edits (based on no consensus and in contradiction with guidelines) where you only cited my talk page in the edit summary. Further, it is ironic that you claim to be worried about my supposed edit warring, then went on to edit war in those very articles you highlighted after writing the ANI here [52][53][54][55] Clearly a hypocritical and problematic user who has difficulties adhering to guidelines.

As WP:NCGN holds, alternative names should be either in the lead or in their own sections. There are many such articles that use these justifications to remove names of the city in another language, e.g. the Turkish name of Thessaloniki is omitted from the lead. I already outlined on my talk page that I would remove foreign/historical names of a city in the world if they are already mentioned in another paragraph of the lead or other sections of the article since it clutters (MOS:LEADCLUTTER) the lead. This proves that I'm not POV-pushing, and also this method is more beneficial than a one-off mention in the lead and is in accordance with MOS and naming conventions. (Omnibenevolence) 09:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Calling another editor "bad faith", "hypocritical" and "problematic" are serious personal attacks which should be retracted. Narky Blert (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I did not have a 'point' against @Joe Roe per se, at least not in the sense that there was any dispute, and I do not appreciate being painted this way in this discussion. I thought (and still do think) that problems exist at a more fundamental level and are related to policy, guidelines and convention, not necessarily editor behavior; and saw Omnibenevolence's edits as unproductive but understandable due to the convoluted and often contradictory nature of these specific guidelines and conventions and also per WP:AGF. This is why I did not open this section. Joe Roe took a different approach (and he can), but that does not mean that I found the edits okay; simply that I think action against individual editors for trying to navigate inconsistently applied, vague and convoluted guidelines and conventions is less productive to the encyclopedia than arguing for changes in these guidelines/conventions.

I do, however, find Omnibenevolence's accusations of "bad faith" unacceptable, and I also believe that Joe Roe is being hasty in describing MOS:LEADCLUTTER as a red herring; this argument (though not exactly with the same words) has been used before, it seems, in perfectly good faith. Uness232 (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment; I've filed an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that Kurds and Kurdistan are designated a contentious topic; I have just given alert to the editor. Armenia is within a scope of two contentious topics, Eastern Europe and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, though I am not sure any of these would apply here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• (A note after archiving:) Omnibenevolence has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Zenzyyx as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Stardustwk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done this many times and been warned many times, yet he just added an unsourced genre to an album article again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Love_Supreme&diff=prev&oldid=1195120156 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU problem, user is on the mobile app, so they (probably) won't see the messages and won't know why they're blocked (if it comes to that). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ritchie333 A lot of those problems have been fixed recently; this is a logged-in user using mobile web, so they should be able to see message alerts. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• 2A01:C23:8581:D300:15BC:BC0C:3D0C:5D4D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Likely block evasion for "Diskos Aleksandrovac 2024". Please see this rangeblock and review this IP's identical contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonSlushie (talk • contribs)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Flying plants are real (talk · contribs)

Batting average on copy edit 'corrections' hovering somewhere around well south of .500, and continuing after receiving a final warning. A lot of gratuitous or arbitrary changes, many of which are backward moves. See my recent edit history of reversions for details. I'll happily provide twenty or more diffs later today, if requested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Boredom889 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please look at Boredom889's recent comments made against other editors: [56], [57], [58], [59]. Most, but not all, of these are aimed at Ayaltimo, including vandalism of their actual user page ([60]). Unsurprisingly, Ayaltimo doesn't seem to have done anything unreasonable. Moreover, Boredom889's latest edit was to vandalize Tomb of Salar and Sangar al-Gawli, somewhat out of the blue, with this comment, which, judging by the article's history, is presumably trying to refer to me.

This seems to have started with them edit-warring a little earlier today ([61], [62]), but I haven't looked further back to see if they've been disruptive earlier, apart from some (mostly low-level) warnings on their user talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop being a negore, for once, black skin Thats just blatant racism. I do think a block would be good. Also, YIIIIKEESSS Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 16:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A lot of these should go straight to revdel, honestly. And I'll add a link to WP:NORACISTS (while not a policy, still an important thing to have in mind when editing the encyclopedia). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

they've been blocked

Block log Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, those diffs are outrageous personal attacks. Show them the door, indef User:Boredom889, clearly NOTHERE. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we can Assume good Faith with those diff's. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about as clear-cut as it gets. Those are personal attacks and hate is disruptive. Blocked indefinitely. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Should the comments where the blocked user called others by variants of the n-word be revdel? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note I have taken the liberty of removing their talk page access in advance here. I can see where this may go, and there's no going back from those comments anyway so no constructive unblock requests can possibly be forthcoming. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have revision deleted the overtly racist edits that I could find. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)