Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

7559:(I paste here the answer I gave to Netherzone). Ok thanks for letting me know. Frankly, I am a bit surprised about your vision (even after I tried to explain a bit myself...). However, I will try to explain it better than I did in the past. I start from the Cilento International Poetry Prize: I read that many times you wrote that it is a Prize that Lerro gives to people to make them to adher to the Movement. As I have already told you, the Prize was born 2017 while the Movement was born 2020, therefore it means two things: first, that important authors accepted the prize before of the movement existence, and second that they have chose to adher to the Movement in a next moment (did you consider for a moment that maybe great authors, included a Nobel Prize for literature, are trusting this movement and wanted to be part of it? I do not think Menotti Lerro was so able to corrupt even all of them to promote himself and his movement...). Still, the Prize has been financed by Italian Ministry of Culture for 140.000 Euro (it happened in the last two years because they liked and trusted this Prize and the same Movement, which is part of the artistical project). Moreover, I wish to tell you I was creating these profiles starting from the list included in the ACCADEMIC VOLUME "The Empathic Movement, Cambridge Scholars 2023 and paperback 2024" published in UK of adherents to the Movement: I DID NOT do it to promote people and the movement in a malicious way, but I was thinking, in good faith, they were encyclopedic profiles, therefore I thought it would have been nice to create the lovely ferment which is involving so many important people both in Italy and abroud... (please look things from another point of view: a beautiful, new Movement is born and 200 and more good artist and scholars and people of culture wanted to be part of it... and now, after all this is already "living" in volumes and articals, I thought It was nice to put it also on Knowledge! The thing that you say that "someone adhering a Movement cannot talk of the same Movement or of his founder", is a bit unconfortable to answer for me: high literary cultured world is connected (thanks to God) therefore it is normal in this field they talk to each other and adher to a Movement of one of them if they respect him. But it is not a limit, or a cheating thing, it is just genuine relations and collaborations among artists, critics, poets, scholars, academics, ecc... they like the work of someone else in the same field or related field and want to talk, write criticism and sometimes adhere to a new movement... Critics such Alessandro Serpieri (writer), Francesco D'Episcopo, Roberto Carifi, Maurizio Cucchi, Giorgio Barberi Squarotti and many others have not been teachers of Menotti Lerro but just in the years they appreciated him, wrote of him and finally wanted to be in his Movement (what is wrong with this?) (and what is wrong if also his own old academic professors trust him so much to adher to his movement?) all this is just a merit, I think, not a bad thing. IN ADDITION: Please, do not quote only local articals: Lerro has been mentioned on many national and international articles such as Corriere della Sera, Il Mattino, Il Sole 24 Ore, The New Arab, "Gradiva" Magazine, "Poesia" Magazine, Nuovi Argomenti Magazine. I understand that something as this movement does not happen often... But can you just for a moment consider that a pretty interesting new Movement arose in 2020, from Italy, going on in a more or less fast way towards the World (it happened after so many decades that something like this did not happen... and never in the past something similar happened starting from the South of Italy...). Lerro is not a powerful, rich person who could be so able to influence so many important authors just to "cheat" academic publishers and now Knowledge... It seems just a relevant, new, beautiful situation spreading good feelings and literature and art in the World... (therefore i thought that also, and in particular, it should have be on Knowledge as the amazing expression of "💕" to welcome new pretty important, and maybe very relevant things.) In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Knowledge the beauty that all of them, starting from the founder - which has 4 academic titles (included MA in Uk and Phd) and studied and taught or was visiting around ten different universities, and wrote 40 creative fiction and no fiction volumes - are creating! You, maybe, should help all of it and be pleased to help to put it on Knowledge... Do you think that good authors could exist just in the past? Maybe Lerro is one that is working pretty well nowadays... cannot be? (would you so surprised for instance if a Nobel Prize was creating this Movement?). Well, Lerro is not a Nobel Prize but it does not mean he cannot create a notable movement or being a good author the same... I think. In conclusion, dear Netherzone, I ask you to not go too far with your thoughts and ideas about what is going on. All of this is extremely clean, and fruit of deep work and passion. Please look things from another point of view and, if you can, I ask you even to help to improve some of the profiles have been created. Maybe not all of them are encyclopedic (sorry if I thought so) but many are at 100%, starting with the Nobel adhered to the movement who DID NOT receive the "Cilento Prize", while the Nobel Prize for literature 2023 got this year the "Cilento Prize" and I see he did not adhere to the Movement... (so as you can see, maybe things are not really as you are thinking. I hope you can change your mind and, as I said, even help a bit if you like...). Thank you a lot to give me the opportunity to explain a bit better everything. With very best wishes. 11048:, in the same way that even an entirely different editor's conduct can become the focus of an ANI discussion, so too can other behaviour by the reported editor--even be it very distantly related to the original matter raised. And I'm not so entirely convinced that the intersection here is as small as you frame it. Now obviously, I just very vociferously defended your opening of those RfCs as presumptively valid actions, absent more particular evidence on disruption on your part. That is because, for better or for worse, wars of subjectivity over lead images are just a phenomena on this project that aren't going anywhere, and RfCs are probably the quickest way of resolving them. As such, even given that you are opening more of them than is typical for a given editor, I didn't see that it was reasonable to penalize you for what I assume are good faith (if arguably mostly pointless) efforts to make your case for a change on each article. That said, this additional infobox issue highlights just how pedantic you are willing to be about the smallest and most inconsequential of changes, how divorced your arguments can be from a policy predicate, and how many characters-worth of time (your own, and finite community time) you are willing to spill to pursue your preferred vision of these tiny details. The order of those names in that infobox is not something even your typical devoted WWII history editor would think was worth invoking an edit. Among those few who would, almost all of them would recognize it was certainly not worth edit warring over, and among those who did edit war (however briefly), fewer still would have thought the matter worth a talk page dispute. Now, I discount the lack of perspective there somewhat, because the discussion clearly illuminates the fact that you are not the first to dispute the ordering of those names--which just goes to show that, much as with some of the persons they cover, for some of our military history editors, there really is no hill too small to die on. But what really pulls this behaviour into potentially disruptive territory is that once you created the discussion, the arguments you proceeded upon were constructed of nothing but idiosyncratic views and 10795:

second most populous nation had just ordered the project to remove certain content which was the subject of the dispute. Pretty much the best case for the necessity of the process, and someone questioned it, reflexively. Now, I'm not stating that editor's name here because their approach isn't the issue. My point is that if you open an RfC at present, it gets challenged; that's almost always a given reality. So from the start I'm not considering pushback an automatic indicator that there is a problem with an given proponent's approach to RfC. Now, are the number or the hit rate more concerning to me? Not really on the number: one or two a month on average is well within what I consider acceptable rates. The fact that the status quo was retained roughly 84% of the time does suggest that at least some of these could have been avoided. But as I mentioned at the outset here, opinions on the best lead images tend to be quite varied and loosely bounded by the policy language on point. It is just one of those things which often best solved by bringing in a cluster of un-involved editors to break the deadlock. And they are often the quickest, most painless and straight forward discussions you will have, with a clear consensus usually formed quickly. Yes, when I get to one, I do often honestly do a little eyeroll that this discussion couldn't have been resolved short of RfC. But then commenting is quick and these RfCs more often than not end up being a little amuse-bouche of a dispute. And for me, the aggregate community time spent only has to be lesser than any disruption that might have been caused by leaving the issue unresolved between two small, entrenched camps unable to reach a consensus by itself. Long and the short of it: I'm not seeing the issue with the existence of these discussions, so far as has been presented here so far.

11056:. But you brought absolutely no such to bear, and the main thing that seems to have animated you was the perspective that Stalin, "a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler at the top of the Allied Powers" above FDR. Now, is all of this worth a sanction? No, not really. But taken with the rest above, it does highlight some very salient points you clearly need to take on board. You are chewing through too much community time for too little gain (both because your positions in these cases are generally non-winners and even if they were, the benefit of the changes is too minuscule compared to the effort needed to effect them). In short, you need to do a better job of picking your battles, because sooner or later it will not just be community time that these issues will be sapping, but also community patience. Even good faith activities by well-intentioned volunteers can be judged net-negatives to the project, given certain particulars. 13902:

don't think that this user deserves an indefinite ban from GAN/FAC/FLC/PR/DYK. I'd support a 6 month restriction that sawyer proposed instead. TheNuggeteer should in the future address concerns and constructive criticism from other more experienced contributors instead of ignoring them. During this 6 month period (if approved), they could work on improving other parts of Knowledge such as those that asilvering proposed. I feel like you've also received enough information on what things you should improve on from your GANs. The main concern seems to be the prose and the use of non-encyclopedic tone. As a side activity, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at our other (recently promoted) GAs and FAs, read the criteria more thoroughly, and learn how those articles were constructed. The restriction could possibly become indefinite if others conclude that you did not improve after your first temporary restriction.

10790:

so loose and the precedents so indeterminate that subjectivity creeps in and you just have to bring in extra voices and have a straight forward consensus. RfC is one of my main modes of talk space contribution; I think I've contributed to somewhere between 1,000-1,200 over the last 15 years. And what I've noticed over the last few years is an absolutely startling uptick in efforts to shoot down most RfCs before they have even started on either procedural grounds or a general implication that the RfC is unnecessary. Honestly, it's the vast majority today: it is much more the norm than the exception, now. We actually just had what might be reasonably described as our most important important RfC to take place on an article talk page in years, and the very first comment in that discussion? A suggested procedural close because

14023:

TheNuggeteer chooses to work on Knowledge moving forward, it is clear that they need to improve their communication with and ability to accept feedback from other editors when valid concerns are being raised. They seemingly ignored or did not pay serious attention to the issues that were raised on their talk page several times and the GAN talk page, and did not appear to take the feedback they were receiving on board. That is why this ultimately ended up at ANI. If this persists, I'm afraid we might end up back here again at some point in the future. In addition to temporarily stepping away from featured content processes, it is my hope that TheNuggeteer also uses this opportunity to make constructive changes in their approach to communicating with other editors and responding to their concerns.

11744:. Do understand that while it's important editors follow our policies and guidelines and we have some that are fairly strict (like more than three reverts), we don't generally follow an overly legalistic system where there are firm objective rules which you must follow and anything not in violation of these firm rules is fine. While I understand this can be difficult for some editors, unfortunately if you want to edit here you're going to have to learn to work within a system where we don't have such strict rulemaking. If multiple experienced editors are telling you what you're doing is not conducive to building and encyclopaedia, you generally should take their advice onboard rather than demanding they point to some specific rule you're violating. 9416:

indefinite blocks. Also, I'll copy something I wrote at Wikipediocracy re IP school blocks: I check the last school year's contributions of an IP range before I block them and if a significant portion of their edits are tagged as reverted (a relatively new feature), I block them ... and sometimes find unreverted vandalism that way. Usually for the ones I've blocked like 90% of their edits are vandalism to either articles or talk pages and the other 10% are either silly but harmless replies to their user talk page or updates to their school's article (which are sometimes good, sometimes not). A lot of pages are on my watchlist because of vandalism, often from school IP's, that has gone unreverted for a while.

4714:. I patrol a long list of Western, Central and Southern Asian articles, which are constantly plagued by these type of users. The majority of them would be a shitshow if I didn't almost single handedly take care of them (including making hundreds of SPIs). I don't do or say this to get thanked or some sort of badge of honor. However, I am not a fucking punching bag, and I wonder if the same carelessness was shown if I belonged to a more historically persecuted group, such as an African American or Jew. Let's be honest, it wouldn't, and that's a good thing. Such behaviour should be taken seriously - but that should equally apply to ALL backgrounds. -- 6303:, though I had assumed at the time it was because of my errors in editing, then went one for several more hours to make my additions in the same style of the original article, yet I can't help but see this as another user who simply hates Arabs, and Arab sources. The note is Xenophobic, offensive, and worthless. Why is the summary of the battle being used as a springboard for an agenda? That literally what it is being used for, not what it is assumed to be used for. Not only did I not remove the note, I simply added more information to the topic. But the first user here added the link here from the talk page, hence the second user's remark. 9861:

and may still do, Knowledge is not a utopian social experiment. Vandals exist. Point-of-view pushers and promotional editors exist. Well-meaning doofuses can do a lot of damage, and that includes newbies and people lacking the competence to edit for whatever reason, and also people fixated on "correcting" the English of articles. Admins are made admins in large part for their cluefulness in identifying all of those problems and figuring out how to deal with them. What's largely happened in this case, I think (I disagree with Graham87 about school IPs) is that his use of the blocking tool has indeed diverged from community expectations, as

11796:, at this point, I think that this discussion would end if you simply stopped replying to everyone and stopped trying to defend yourself. No one has proposed sanctions, they raised concerns and I hope what they said had an impact on your future conduct around RFCs and a reconsideration if all of the ones you started were really necessary. But I think this whole discussion would end if you ceased replying to every comment and returned to regular editing. But if the problems perceived by other editors persist, there might be a return visit to ANI. As for now, I recommend disengaging from this discussion. 3830:. If any of the those three points were not the case, I wouldn't have closed it. Any RFC that had a chance would require rewriting—as their attempt to do so in reopening shows. I have no compunctions about it being a SNOW close if I'm to trust my own faculties, and I feel that's been vindicated by the fact that no one has challenged the close on its merits—as opposed to challenging it on procedural grounds as you're doing here (and are completely within your rights to do, of course). That it seemed appropriate to do after only a day is a function of just how weak the RFC's premise was. 8311:

Empathetic Movement that lists all of their names or the claim is based on the fact that they won this literary award. I think this is a weak attribution and the statement that an academic belongs to a literary movement should be based on statements by that author themselves, we should take the claims of the movement on who its members are. And I think if the article subjects have a demonstratable notability based on their academic or literary work, we shouldn't hold it against them that an editor with a different COI created or contributed to these articles.

3810:, my question to you is why did you close this RFC after one day? RFCs typically last at least one week or longer. And I don't think 3 editors' opinion merits a SNOW close after just one day. I think our understanding of SNOW has gotten way out of whack, it's used too often when there is just a small group of editors who agree when it is supposed to be used for a tidal wave of Keeps, not just 3 editors. That's a "consensus" that could easily change with a few more participants and 1 day is not long enough for editors to even discover that the RFC is going on. 7655:

by the other. I repeat, they are only hipotethical cases, just to tell you, that there are possibilities... (but I see you just want to find a good reason to offend myself...). Maybe another thing is that in the second house in the same little village lives there with old parents in a secon house he goes to visit sistematically.... (you should not be so strict to imagine the reasons of others, in case it would be really the same person). Anyway, all of these are only suppositions to let you consider reasons at your focused question. All the best

12486:. In brief, "poop" is vandalism but changing a default category sort may be an incorrect good-faith edit. Also, Commons links are sometimes unhelpful and their presence needs at least a nod of discussion. However, the IP is making about a hundred edits a day but has never commented. Many of their edits have been reverted so I issued a partial block for three days to encourage them to start discussing their proposed changes. Let me know if it continues without consensus but please try to engage them in a discussion without templated warnings. 5619:) has been made aware of their talk page but does not respond there or here. Since the mainspace-block, they have repeatedly recreated an article on their user page and repeatedly uploaded a copyright-violating image to Commons to use on their user page ( that's being dealt with on Commons). The article on their user page was deleted yesterday by Justlettersandnumbers under U5, and Edit the error has just restored it. With their problematic edits, refusal to communicate, and misuse of userspace, I think it's time to stop the disruption. 3163:: they has repeteadly derailed the RFC and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue. Preventing consensus. they has actively worked to prevent the community from reaching a wider consensus by monopolizing the discussion and dismissing opposing viewpoints. Gagging the procedure: their actions have effectively stifled the RFC process, preventing the community from having a fair and open discussion. I urge you to take immediate action to address this issue and ensure that the RFC can proceed in a productive and respectful manner. 10107:

sing or say negative things about the UK, and seems determined to call them "Anglophobes" without bothering to provide references to reliable sources describing them as Anglophobes. His edits to various members of the Farrell family are to attempt to deny that they are English while failing to produce any reliable sources that they are not English. My conclusion is that this editor is an ethnonationalist POV pusher who simply does not see the need to provide references to reliable sources verifying his contentious assertions.

4295:"Further provoking editors who are already clearly upset"? Sorry, but really? What gives them the right to be upset? Are we just going to ignore their blatantly xenophobic (borderline racist) attacks? I am the one who should be upset here. I am just following procedure, I can't have the patience of a saint when a user is persistently attacking me and just generally disregarding our policies. You gave them a chance to strike their personal attacks, they refused and doubled down. Are there not any repercussions? Or is 8331:, I agree that many of these claims were added by the socks promoting Empathism rather than a neutral source or the person themself. I too found that the list of "members" or "adherents" were coming from Lerro/Empathism or from the socks. Many of these people are indeed notable, some are not. To my way of thinking we should keep the notables but remove the promo/spam, and either AfD or redirect the non-notables that were simply added because they signed the Empathism manifesto or were designated a "member". 7604:

this thing (arriving to mock me... "indomito teatrante" and such) which, sorry, doesn't seem so relevant to me... (but maybe I was and I am wrong. I don't reeally know so well all these rules... Sorry!) My connection is that of someone, with a bit of knowledge of literature and art, passionate of all this new work has been done and the nice ferment is going on. If I can I will keep writing happily of it, if I cannot anymore, because I did something wrong, I will stop. Thank you a lot. All the best.

2349: 11771:

they are already aware that their contribution there was, even though in alignment with the ultimate disposition of the infobox, less than ideal behaviorally. My comments here and elsewhere (forever) indicate that I am sometimes pedantic and am usually willing to continue arguments when others would think it a waste of time and effort. If those other edits can illuminate a behavioral pattern, that can give us an idea of what to expect in the future, and therefore what changes to recommend.

13362: 14042:. I also think that TheNuggeteer needs to address their lack of communication with others as well as how they have seemingly ignored feedback from others. Their lack of communication is ultimately what led us here and I don’t feel that a topic ban will be sufficient without them improving this pattern of behaviour. Additionally I think they should do a co-review or at least have someone checking over their reviews if/when they return to the GA process. 9845:

often can be hard to distinguish a paid editor from somebody who just wants to write an article on a musician or influencer they like. That's why the SPI backlog is so long. Still, it's better to let a sockpuppet or COI go than it is to block legitimate editors who are trying to learn. We do need a lot more admins to handle various backlogs, but driving out newbies before they can gain experience is only going to make the problem worse in the long run.

7734:"One, Two, Three" is just to say I DO NOT KNOW if there are more people involed in creating the articles... It could be one, or two or three or ten as for all Knowledge articles i guess, (I was not really thinking at all of this). I really let me know I do not understand your aim starting from personal little mocking you did on me since the beginnig. Maybe someone should look at yo too... Kind regards 6563:

the range Arab sources cite. Why is this note not being left in place for all the Greco-Persian battles now? According to the reasoning deployed in the aforementioned article by the two users here, where primary sources are omitted for the sake of offensive remarks, all numbers in all Greco-Persian battle articles (in particular the summary) ought be omitted for the sake of that singular note, which

7420:, and it’s various projects and members. It’s obviously a COI project, and I feel confident in saying it is likely UPE – perhaps the work of a PR firm to promote Lerro and his associates and projects. Both editors have denied having a COI, claiming to be fans, however Gingeksace admitted asking Lerro for photos to publish, however for an “unconnected” editor they sure know a lot about Lerro’s life. 9873:

different kinds of cases, how rapidly do they block, when do they use indef, how long are their blocks on IPs. Some of your comments, here and elsewhere, indicate you study editors who you think might be promotional, and schools that produce problematic edits. Step back from blocking and instead turn that analytical focus on current blocking practice for a while. You've drifted from best practice.

11696:

unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Even after receiving the warning, you apparently continued to believe you weren't edit warring when you were. Your understanding of what is edit warring was fairly flawed. While apparently the edit warring didn't resolve your confusion and there is always debate over templated warnings vs a personalised message, it seems fair for Nick-D to have tried.

9160:...once they make such an unambiguous statement I agree that an immediate block is reasonable. There is no alternative beyond "you are prohibited by policy from editing unless and until you withdraw it", and it's reasonable discretion to enforce that with a block. Legal threats aren't a level1 up to level4 warning situation, and it's not for us to try to discern how serious they are about it. 7424: 8371:, as one example. I don't think the listing of his name among many others on an empathist web page is adequate sourcing for this. He did edit a volume of poetry by Lerro but it doesn't seem very central to his publications. I agree with Liz above that if any of the rest of this pile of articles avoids deletion, we should look carefully at whether any empathist claims are warranted. 10827:

example of you speaking to a second community member like you spoke to Nemov there, we'd probably be talking about a serious sanction right now. I know I would be amenable to a topic ban at the minimum. The fact that, even in the heat of the moment, you thought that was an acceptable way to interact in a collaborative workspace raises serious questions about your

10544:

of other editors if they so rarely change the status quo. I'm not against change but it looks like this hasn't been an effective way to change articles. It could be low participation (an issue all over the project) or the wording of the RFC or just your timing. But if you keep trying a method with little success, I'd probaly move on and try something else.

10504:, I have no obligation to give you my assessment at this point. As an administrator, I am still investigating and I expect you to answer my questions frankly and honestly as you did my initial question. Please do so. Stonewalling is not a good strategy for you. Be fully responsive to the concerns about your RFC conduct that have been raised here. 12947:. I got called a "dictator" even though 316 Knowledge editors supported me becoming an administrator and I do my best every single day to justify that support. Most amusingly, I got called "little". There are quite a few active editors who have met me face to face over the years, and they can all attest that I am 6'-3" and about 240 pounds. 11461:

to. I really don't feel like taking the aspersions seriously, but it's fairly clear that our positions expressed were not the same: I thought the ordering was arbitrary and likely shouldn't be changed because it could cause further disruption, while Nick-D did not think it was arbitrary, and claimed the ordering was based in what RS say.

6352:, are you using primary sources on an article about a battle from antiquity? You should not be doing that, no, except in certain circumstances (such as to say something like "Tertullian said that 'blah blah'; however, modern historians believe that 'blah blah'." Weaving together an article based on historical sources from antiquity is 1776:. Responding to people with things like "so according to me it doesn't make sense" and "it's still unfair" are not helpful or substantive. Make all your points and leave others to make theirs and let the closer evaluate consensus. An ANI warning was fair at this point, though I don't think action needs to be taken if you actually 12425:), removing Wikiquote templates, Rotten Tomatoes templates, as well as TCMDb, AFI, stub sorting templates et al. Supported with no edit summaries. They are now edit warring to restore their desired versions. Given their far-reaching dedication I would not be surprised if this is an IP sock of a past persistent vandal. 8464:, and others, while other editors are draftifying those with potential or redirecting others if there's a suitable target; I've been cleaning up the ones that seem to be notable and doing a little of all of the above. This sort of teamwork on a clean up effort like this is such an amazing aspect of this community. 14355:'s user page proudly states their status as "Knowledge Evader" and also calls for people to use their talk page to chat with. I wasn't very sure whether ANI was the right place to put this since it's labeled as "for urgent incidents", but AN says that narrow issues, like user related ones, should be put in ANI. 12417:- I and others have warned this IP numerous times. They vandalised past my 4th warning so I reported them at AIV but was directed to take the issue here. Their edits are varied but focus on horror film-related articles. They include incorrectly altering sortkeys, refactoring book ISBNs without hyphens (against 9886:

promotionalism. (And personally I think you're overly suspicious of new editors who show clue or even familiarity with the rules or the mark-up. Sometimes they're long-term IP editors, people using some WMF gizmo, retired professors, computer professionals, or simply geniuses ... but I'm known for my naïveté.)

9346:. I hope it continues and, on second thought, was hasty with my earlier comment. I don’t want to see him deysysopped, but the community doesn’t have the power to decide whether or not someone has used the tools fairly. When there’s reasonable arguments to be made for either side, I do support escalation. 10692:, I have already directed you to the appropriate pages and asked you to take on board the feedback you have received from other editors. If you choose to reject that advice, then please be prepared for some negative consequences if you ignore the warning that I gave to you. The choice is entirely yours. 4977:

offense to HoI keeping strictly to our requirements for sourcing and NPOV in this topic area. Zemen's personal attacks should not be taken lightly, and their claims of "typos" around ethnic insults are not believable. Seeing admins dismiss them out of hand & accuse HoI of "bullying" is appalling. —

5165:) uses the iOS mobile app to edit. Although they've only been editing since 6 September, their talk page is full of messages and warnings. They found their user page (and are using it to draft an article) but there's no sign that they've seen their talk page. Some of the messages are about copyright. 4386:

serious attempt to try to take the temperature down when dealing with content disputes, even if you think the other editor is stupid, wrong, rude, or all three. What you've done here instead is try to get the other editor blocked. You should both apologize to each other for the misunderstandings (yes,

13724:

does a review with a more experienced reviewer. I know co-reviews aren’t common with GA but I think this could be really helpful in the learning process. I did try to reach out with this idea but didn’t get much of a response. Either this or if they choose to do reviews after their ban someone checks

13352:

TheNuggeteer has been given every opportunity to receive guidance from more experienced editors, but shows no signs that they understand they are being disruptive, nor that they are taking steps to prevent it. I cannot in good conscience recommend an indefinite block against a good-faith editor, so I

11529:

I'm still hashing out my position on drive-by templating: at this moment, this is a case where putting a big maintenance banner atop a highly developed, highly visible article for what is a potential but not universally perceived problem—is more disruptive and unhelpful than you starting a discussion

11214:

The first makes your bold change; the second reverts to your bold change. (The third is unrelated.) Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring. It might not be a problem worth enforcing – you know that if the speed limit is 40,

10794:

hadn't been satisfied. Nevermind that the most cursory search of the archives and the circumstances would have immediately revealed that it was a highly contentious issue going back to the article's inception, that there had been numerous previous discussions, or that the Supreme Court of the world's

10580:

If I do what, exactly? You have yet to provide me with specific criteria on when it is or is not appropriate to open an Rfc in the future. Unless you say otherwise, this seems less like a constructive warning and more like an indefinite ban on my ability to open Rfcs even if I have a valid reason for

9860:

Here from the Wikipediocracy thread, where I've weighed in a few times and so for transparency's sake, I should join the conversation here, too. Speaking as a former admin and also just as a long-time editor ... I appreciate Graham87's working to protect the encyclopaedia. As it used to say somewhere

9754:

I'm neutral on whether anything ought to be done about Graham87, but I do want to suggest that the current state of the unblock request list perhaps aggravates this type of thing. You have a relatively small number of admins taking on an extremely large workload that -- let's be honest -- consists of

9113:

The NBM of Africa, which is known as the Neo-Black Movement of Africa is registered under the laws of Nigeria. This published article is defamatory and we as an organization will not stand and watch criminals or unscrupulous elements damage the reputation of this Organization. We have written a court

8694:- Keeps making unsourced date changes, hasn't responded to warnings, and /64 has previously been blocked for 3 months in February 2024 and a month in November 2023 for disruptive editing - every edit from this /64 going back months is unsourced date changes. Recent examples of unsourced date changes: 7669:

PS about my words "we all know that about many authors there are people close to that authors" I just wanted to say that usually it is clear that very often behinde contemporary authors there are people close to them... It is at the least my impression. But I did not mean myself in that close way...

7408:

Regarding User:Nihaon created 7 articles on Lerro’s Empathic Movement members/adherents during the same time as Gingeksace creating dozens. Nihaon also removed COI templates from several articles involving Lerro & Empathism. Of their 900-some edits most have been to add content or name-drop Lerro

6562:

to scare away anyone that's after the spread of inconvenient facts. It seems the article for the battle is being used as a springboard to cast a shadow of doubt over all Arab sources with a note, one that is utterly nonsensical by the fact that non-Arab sources use figures that are actually MORE than

6123:

In the talk page the user refuses to include anything that doesn't agree with them I'm new to the wiki interface so I cannot use wiki as weapons of abuse as well as he can. I am not interested in engaging with a party that actively hampers knowledge. Here is the previous wiki page, Please look at and

4385:

Let me put it this way: what I see here is an experienced user deciding to bully a less-experienced user with an ANI report instead of trying to calmly resolve a content dispute that went only mildly sideways before the ANI threats started. Has Zemen behaved well? No. Have you? Also no. Please make a

4322:

more experienced editor, I'd expect that you know when to take a step back. I haven't looked at the sources, but given your experience, I expect you're the one who has the right of the content dispute here. Once you can explain that to the other editor without feeling needled by their response (which

4317:

Anyone has the "right" to be upset. It's a normal human emotion, and it's perfectly normal to feel that way when someone has frustrated you. Reversions are frustrating; they're upset. You feel attacked and are also upset. I can certainly understand your frustration. But neither of you are going to be

4069:

I asked you once directly and three times indirectly to end the arguments because we won't reach a conclusion, and you don't like to see 'a word', but you kept going, that I don’t know what you want. you can just remove my edits and let me know what to do in the edit summary, not come to my talk page

2704:

Alright, I'll bite: since you have no personal information on your user page, how is it the charity could have possibly found you on social media? How would the police be coming to your door? As far as "weaponising" the Online Safety act goes, the information about the inquiry appears not merely to

13415:

I empathize with you when you say this is incredibly scary, because frankly, this forum generally is. Especially for people still new to some aspect of Knowledge. What I would advise right now, before the heat gets intense and gets to you, is to step away from the site for a couple of days and allow

11600:

I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but the tone is hardly what I would characterize as friendly. The overall aim by some of the editors here seems to be to significantly limit if not outright stifle any further contributions of mine to this project. If I sound "manic", that is the

11460:

deserves any particular sanction or redress, that's news to me. Secondly, could you please relax? Casting aspersions against me or others seems like another unneeded ratcheting up of what is already a fairly manic dialogue on your part. As someone who is also capable of mania, it is not fun to reply

10404:

Outside of this focus on infobox image RFCs, Emiya1980 seems like a good editor, but they’re taxing the RFC process with needless RFCs. I could understand if they were improving the project, but most of the RFCs are ending in status quo. Maybe it’s time to focus on something else? The RFC process is

10106:

without providing a reference verifying this highly contentious claim. I could be wrong but I have been unable to find reliable sources that verify that Oliver has renounced his UK citizenship or that he broadly dislikes "British people". The editor also clearly dislikes Irish musical performers who

9872:

Graham87, stop blocking people (except for the most obvious and nasty vandals) and recalibrate your sense of blocking policy and its implementation. Maybe choose 2 or 3 admins active in blocking (and not checkusers or other special cases) and analyse their blocks in recent months: what do they do in

9844:

I do a lot of SPI work, so I completely understand how difficult it can be to maintain a good attitude when dealing with the worst of the worst. Still doesn't excuse this. I often close SPI cases without action even when my instincts tell me they're a sock, because I can't prove it. Even for UPE, it

9759:

when they just come in to review a single editor's appeal on a request than it is for an admin who has just spent hours dealing with UPEs, angry failed autobiographers, and vandals. If there are admins who have the ability and time to provide assistance here, I'd urge them to consider reviewing more

8496:

Sure thing, there are a few AfD's for some with questionable notability, and I noticed this morning that another editor had PRODDED 4 or 5 articles. Mostly what needs to be removed from the notables is the spam/promo about Menotti Lerro and his "cultural movement", the Empathic Movement (Empathism).

7796:

Anyway, please, try to consider that in that case I even did not could imagine these things... (people I guess does not even know about all these a bit inedd strict rules...). And honestly I think that I have explained very deeply my reasons and goood faith even if I did some whatever eventual thing

7751:

Sadly your approach over the years has always been that your abuses are unimportant and that other users should overlook them. If only you had just read the relevant policies and abided by them we wouldn't be here now. But here we are looking at a sockmaster operating multiple accounts in one narrow

7488:

I then looked at the two users’ overall editing histories and noticed that they never seem to be online at the same time, often having clear days when only one is online, or otherwise apparently tagging each other in and out through the course of a day (as for example on Sept 1, 15, 17, 19, 20 &

5795:

when I got bombarded by a bunch of talk page notifications and emails that I couldn't clear. It's hard to figure out how to get rid of that yellow banner when the software doesn't like the location of your talk page. And then you panic/lose a lot of good faith given the new location of my user page.

4995:

out of hand here. I have said (quite clearly, I think) that Zemen has behaved poorly, and that it's entirely understandable that both editors here are upset. I have not said that there should be no actions taken. I remain convinced that it's always best to be collegial to editors you're in a content

3364:

inadvertent about my revert of your edit. It's bizarre that you interpreted Remsense's comment as justification to reopen the RFC, it was inappropriate for you to reopen that RFC (let alone for the second time), and it was even more inappropriate for you to change the wording of the rfc after it was

2815:

Hmm. As a Brit myself, I am unconvinced by "it's a small country where everyone knows everyone." I am certainly not on friendly terms with every single one of the other 69 million people on these isles. Regardless, about the article - that section dominating an article for a 156-year old charity is

14420:

Well, Northern Moonlight linked the version of their userpage above in their reply. You can see Hexerade makes that bold claim about ban evasion themselves. As for their edit to that page, it's a pretty simple and honestly trivial addition to the lead of a list article. I am assuming good faith for

12515:

If you have posted a lot of templated warnings on their talk page, they really do not need you repeating it all again. Post a regular talk page message, trying to connect with the editor rather than posting any more notices. The goal is to get this editor to communicate, not to scold them. But this

12500:

Thank you, Johnuniq. Sorry for any imprecise language. I was going to start a non-templated discussion on their talk but noticed you have already done so. I already (as required) notified them of this ANI discussion. So I won't repeat all of my grievances listed here. But I will make mention of the

11770:

Of course, any and all edits provide information about the editor's abilities, interests, and behavioral patterns. For example, the WWII edits indicate that Emiya1980 is willing to carefully follow clearly stated, objective rules to the letter. Remsense's comments here and elsewhere indicate that

11571:

I meant what I said above: if you feel people need to "take the fall" or write a page's worth of dialogue over a tiny incident, that's a you problem, and others really aren't required to follow your logic to its conclusion. What matters is that editors are able to work with each other, which I feel

10789:

It's very peculiar that no one, neither the OP nor the reported party, thought to point out that all of these RfC's have a common purpose--specifically, that they are all for the purpose of deciding on a lead image. So here's the thing--this is just one of those areas where the policy language is

10543:

But if the assessment at the beginning of this case is true, all of these RFCs have not resulted in any changes. So, I guess I would try to appeal to the fact that we all have limited amount of time we can work on this project and ask whether starting another RFC is a good use of your time and that

10518:

I confess to pushing the envelope with regards to publishing notices about Rfcs which I have opened or am otherwise involved. I also admit fault with regards to opening more than one or two Rfcs at a time. However, if more than a few editors are involved in a discussion and a decisive consensus has

9682:

There is a general agreement that, for some time now, there have been intermittent issues with Graham87's use of the block tool, and of issues with WP:INVOLVED. Graham87 has been admonished for doing so, and has agreed to work harder in the future to abide by the restrictions on admins using their

9517:

be evaluated on a procedural basis, as Graham87 reviewed himself and revoked talk page access. One other general note, I noticed that Graham87 has used the phrases "your editing pattern is highly suspicious" and "you are not welcome here" toward multiple editors whom he blocked for relatively mild

9432:

I'm not going to weigh in here in either direction as I closed the prior thread but I'm not sure what another ANI achieves when these are about blocks that happened before the prior thread. Were you hoping Graham would go through their past blocks and reassess? If you think it merits tool removal,

7654:

NO. I tried to give an hipotethical answers at the question you did. Another hipothethical answer is someone else has what (you) see as "similiar style". In additiopn: PC keep (remind) the passwords, so maybe I could just use two different accounts because one password is reminded by one PC and one

7603:

I do not know... but: in case, (it is ipothetical) I would have another house and I go there to eat and pass my other kind of time and maybe I created a second profile because I did not remind the password of the first account, would it be such a bad thing? It seems to me you are so curious to know

6136:

I did not alter the xenophobic note that he put in place of the figure, or the figures that were there before. I fixed them as they were being cited as medieval estimates, which nonsensical. I added additional numbers and actial primary sources because I am neutral as far as what had happened, but

5673:

For that matter, what’s to say this isn’t someone planning to make that draft up, then have a sock replace the existing article with the junk they’ve ripped? Maybe let’s not take that risk? This is, of course, in addition to the Copyvio notices they’ve removed, and AFC declines, that I pointed out,

5028:

HistoryofIran is a very hard working editor operating in an unbelievably difficult topic area. While doing that work they are consistently beset by uncivil ethno-nationalist POV pushers. HistoryofIran is fully deserving of the community's support and thanks. They shouldn't have to put up with being

3334:

You're hindering the discussion by not engaging with the points of site procedure and policy communicated to you by literally everyone who has engaged with you so far. You're not entitled to discussion on your terms alone, and there's no particular reason we care about "alternative perspectives" if

3001:

I think topic banning GDX420 from attempting to investigate or fix COI editing would be a reasonable step here, since a lot of the disruption seems to stem from their belief that this article is being edited by COI editors. They have had issues with lacking the competence to properly deal with paid

2583:

That misrepresentation of the source on the Pune rename is problematic for me. Its a false representation of information and straight up NPOV and incorrect rename of an article. Its more than that. I don't know enough about the area to call for a topic ban. A simple reading of the source, it states

1500:

Agree. This editor has been asked to provide summaries on the editor's talk page (twice by me), and has been told about the MoS, but has made multiple edits ignoring it despite warnings by other editors, all warnings without any result. This is especially problematic as the editor's edits are often

13901:

I've recently seen some TheNuggeteer's contributions and warnings they received. I personally wanted to weigh in and recommend them to step away from what they've been doing at GAN, though I ultimately didn't because of the lack of responses at previous warnings. Despite everything they've done, I

13177:

I am here after every alternative means of intervention has been exhausted and with extreme disappointment that it has come to this. TheNuggeteer is a newer editor who has been getting involved in several content processes and some administrative tasks. While without a doubt approaching their work

11732:

even when they are not required to. While doing so will not completely protect you from edit warring issues; and outside of areas where it's required, making 2 or 3 reverts doesn't mean you will definitely be blocked for edit warring; IMO it's a bad idea for any editor to think two reverts is okay

10831:

for this project. I would strongly urge you to not get within a kilometer of the kind of "Ok, time for you to shut up." style of statement to a fellow community member going forward. It was very hard for me to separate my thoughts about your decision to open the RfCs, as discussed above, from how

10672:

ready to throw anything he can at me to stop me from bucking his preferred version of the status quo, I need clarifications on what is acceptable and what is not (especially when dealing with guidelines as contradictory and open to interpretation as these). If you are not willing to provide me the

9876:

When you resume blocking, always watchlist the blockee's user page (or maintain a separate list of user pages to check every day). It's courteous, I think most admins do it, and for whatever reasons, a large percentage of people don't follow the instructions for filing an unblock request using the

8244:

Anyone have thoughts on whether this "garden of delights" is undisclosed paid editing, or just the garden-variety COI? The reason I ask is I've been tagging some of the articles as COI, but am wondering if PAID would be a better clean up tag to use. Many thanks to those who are already starting to

6557:

actually. The user conducted themselves in bad faith, not being assumed to. Again, explain yourselves, you who also aided them in their corruption of the article. The xenophobic note is contradicted by other sources; non-Arab, non-Muslim sources. Yet again this is omitted, censored, and obfuscated

6175:

Without evidence? What? How is removing numerical figures for a derogatory note acceptable ? Are all primary sources taboo on wikipedia now? Should all battles from antiquity, or even the modern era (as the figures from them too are contested) ought to be replaced by a concise offensive remark? By

4976:

HoI has been dealing with a constant barrage of harassment from POV-pushers in a highly contentious area of the Wiki for years. Their reports to ANI have been extremely on-point, and at this point deserve the benefit of the doubt. EducatedRedneck is correct, a lot of ethno-nationalist editors take

4961:

exists, but we also need another essay (if it doesn't exist) that we can't just let new editors come in and attack long-term editors with no consequence. That's a good way to lose long-term editors, too. For old-timers, I'm thinking of Malik. HoI does not need to accept attacks on his ethnicity

4944:

I'm sorry, I don't have time to dig too deeply into this. But I do agree that there are repeated personal attacks in there, and that the repeated claims that they're all just typos is untrue on its face, and that HoI does not need to just take them forever. I've left a warning at their talk page

4910:

Other comments, such as the "laughing while eating chips" one, come off as dismissive, implying that reaching a compromise is not Zemen's objective. I don't think an indefinite block is needed, but something should stop the disruption now and make it clear to Zemen that it will not be tolerated in

3533:

In the meantime, I kindly request that you and the concerned editors reconsider your stance and engage in a constructive dialogue through the RFC process. I believe that open communication and a willingness to participate are essential for resolving disputes and maintaining a collaborative editing

2943:

Honestly it seems like GDX420 is determined to just turn the entire article into a hit piece against the RNIB, and their edit history does show that perhaps they're a little too obsessed with doing so. Does the scandal have a place, yes it does. Does it deserve to override everything else and even

2681:

Since adding the content staff from the charity have contacted me via social media demanding my full name and address and when I refused to provide them with this information gangs of Police officers have been showing up at my house banging on my door in the middle of the night waking up the whole

1690:

was opened and failed. The editor bludgeoned folk there, was warned. The merge never got anywhere. The articles were then moved to Afd to get a better consensus. However, the editor is bludgeoning folk there as well, was warned at Afd, but still doing it which is stalling the discussion on them as

14022:

I have been watching this situation from a distance over the last week. At this time, I support a 6 month topic ban from participation in featured content assessment processes (e.g., DYK, GAN, FA, FL), broadly construed, at a minimum, based on the totality of what I have seen. Regardless of where

13873:). i mostly just want to encourage them to slow down and focus less on points or green circles and more on substantively improving articles without incentive. i also completely understand how nerve-wracking it can be to be taken to this board, and i appreciate the kindness shown here by everyone. 13566:

A good plan, I think. The open-ended nature of an indefinite ban would be extra stress for this particular editor, and would probably lead to unban requests that made everyone unhappy. I would broaden the topic ban to include contests as well, since I think they share the same perverse-incentives

11707:

Also, while warnings should primarily be intended to inform an edit so they change their behaviour and no further action is needed, because we don't generally block editors when they were genuine unaware they were violating our policies and guidelines the possibility a warning may be needed for a

9733:

I personally don't have confidence in this admin at all, unfortunately. Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but this is way, way beyond that. It is active, repeated and ongoing abuse of admin tools. I think an apology by Graham87 to some of the inappropriately blocked editors such as StattoSteven

9415:

I will endeavour to use more warnings than blocks from now on where feasible (it can be harder for IP and especially IPV6 users ... and in my experience many warnings are ignored, but that could be confirmation bias) ... and I'd forgotten there was a separate section of the blocking policy about

8349:

I agree with Liz that whether an individual belongs to a movement should be based on their own comments, rather than claims made by others. However, given the significant practical problems of sourcing such comments in Italian, and the very large number of articles involved, can I suggest that it

8287:

But then the fact that the ringleader was apparently the same in both 2015 and 2024, despite the fact the the 2015 campaign failed, makes me question that idea. Similarly the rather amateur nature of the activity, using someone with poor English skills and no understanding of Knowledge policy and

7931:

I think you'll have better results from filing an SPI (it's very straightforward, I've found) than trying to badger Gingeksace into an admission. A good faith explanation does exist: two editors with similar interests and different schedules. I'm dubious, hence why I think the SPI is a good idea.

7492:

It looks to me as though one end user has been editing the various articles as essentially a full time (and thus paid?) endeavour over the last 4 weeks, alternating between 2 different accounts. Either that or the activity is closely co-ordinated, which would strongly support the idea of COI/UPE.

4890:

First, HoI has a history of being taken here, typically by NOTHERE editors who don't like their reliance on scholarship. While I below may assume too much good faith, I by no means fault HoI for having exhausted theirs; they edit in a topic area prone to vitriolic nationalism, and I commend their

4370:

So does Zemen just get away with all their attacks, including in this report, where they have called me "childish" twice? Do you think that's okay? Is it allowed to attack users and engage in namecalling due to their perceived ethnicity? Two other users have called them out for their behaviour in

3911:

suggests a need to acknowledge the health claims without suggesting they are accepted. I didn't post it because (a) things quickly turned to whether curcumin = turmeric, an argument I didn't (and don't) understand, and (b) it was hard to frame it in a way that gave due weight to medref/profringe.

12346:, if you supplied a few diffs (I'd say between 3 and 8) of edits you were concerned about, rather than just listing accounts, you might get more of a response here. You need to point out the obvious rather than expecting editors to go looking for what the problems are. That's just my suggestion. 11720:

and has been blocked in the past for edit-warring, so I cannot see any way an admin would have let them be because they didn't know. I wasn't aware of all these details when I wrote my earlier comment but this very strongly re-enforces my point that if Remsense didn't know, a template was fairly

11626:

If you don't want your editing to be seen as problematic, I'd strongly suggest taking the feedback various editors have provided in this thread on board as this type of editing and the way in which you participate in related discussions (including this discussion) is not constructive or helpful.

9865:

suggests. It's become abusive at times. With an added problem that he isn't good at explaining to the user in plain English what they've been doing wrong (far from the only admin with that issue, but our PAGS can be counter-intuitive and our jargon can be hard to understand, and admins should be

9547:

I've deemed an editing pattern highly suspicious when it seemed like an editor was trying to get to autoconfirmed/extended-confirmed (perhaps for nefarious purposes) using minor edits to pad their edit count. My use of "you are not welcome here" has probably been rather harsh and I'll avoid that

8103:

Lots of articles all about Menotti Lerro etc., lots of socks all with indistinguishable interests and editing patterns. Ringleader seemed to be an account called Rainermaria27 who used poor English to express sentiments very similar to those expressed by Gingeksace above (e.g. rules breaches are

7782:

different accounts. E.g. when adding wikilinks one account consistently used the summary "underlined name" while the other consistently used the summary "highlighted name". However, you were given away by the fact that the two accounts were never online together and tagged each other in and out.

6670:

Go away man. You're neither interesting, nor worthwhile to me. I asked for arbitration, because you are clearly an oldhand at abuse of the system here and I did not want the article to remain corrupted. Enough terror tactics. How many Editors has this user scared offf wikipedia, followed by them

5547:

Following U5 deletion of their user page and deletion of the copyright-breaching image from Commons, they've recreated the page with a different copyright-breaching image. They still haven't responded on their talk page or here. Their creation still seems to be low-quality LLM copypasta to which

13699:

A thought occurs. If you like doing GA Reviews, what else would be up your street, on-wiki? Let’s find Nugget something else to do, that they’ll like. Preferably something that is easier to pick up, and less damaging if it goes wrong. If it’s the “reading long things” aspect, the COPYEDIT drive

9146:

I, for one, am concerned they (at least ostensibly) jumped to filing a court order after their AFC was denied, rather than discussing it. That's a tad more drastic than an ANI filing. Unlike a mere threat, which can be made in the heat of the moment, it indicates they are unlikely to back down.

7781:

As I said above, it would be the usual reason for sockpuppetry. i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user. The deception in that regard between Gingeksace and Nihaon was actually quite subtle, including using two entirely different styles of language for the edit summaries for the two

7373:

Forgive me for the length of this report. I am bringing it here rather than to COIN because it’s an ongoing problem, and there have been efforts to resolve these issues, but the problems have recently escalated, and it seems that a type of "walled garden" has been created. These two editors are

10826:

That is not, however, to say that I see nothing wrong with Emiya's conduct inside the discussions after they have started. Emiya, let me be blunter than my diplomatic colleagues have been above: your conduct on the Mussolini article was so over the line that had there been even a single extra

6056:

User is conveniently again using selective quotations that suits their bias. "I included several references and citations, you did nothing but include a note by some guy. Ought I find some note about how worthless persian sources are." The charge of xenophobia is nonsensical as the xenophobic

4925:

Context is key when it comes to something along the lines of "Naturally a X would believe Y"... If Zemen was making a simple bias argument there is a way and a place to respectfully bring up a potential bias based on nationality or ethnicity... What Zemen absolutely can not do is use a real or

11686:

you seem to be making way too big a deal over the templated warning you received about edit warring. First a template warning isn't really a "reprimand", it's a warning that your behaviour, in the opinion of the person leaving the warning is violating our policies and guidelines and so if you

9885:

about new articles, suggesting they ask at the Teahouse, using short-term protection rather than repeatedly reverting, or asking at a noticeboard or on another admin's user talk (or, dare I suggest it, on Discord/IRC/e-mail) if you are at wit's end over something that seems, for example, like

8310:

I've looked at some of these articles and I think the claim that all of these scholars are part of this intellectual movement is tenuous and probably added to their articles and infoboxes by these socks. The primary source I've found to ascertain their "membership" is a publication of the the

6571:

omitted for that note? By their reasoning there is a far greater case to make for that. Not only is it similar in scope, not only are the parties involved named in that illustrious note, it lacks corroborating non-Greek sources for numbers involved to boot; unlike the situation here which had

5490:

The file's been tagged for copyvio speedy on Commons, so we might as well wait for that to happen since they keep restoring it. Obviously they saw the message about their talk page and decided to ignore it. I guess as long as they can't be disruptive in mainspace or add copyrighted content to

9449:

The previous thread (which I didn't participate in) was about a single bad block. Every admin makes an occasional mistake, I've made plenty. My digging showed that it looks to be a much larger issue, but realistically Arbcom is not going to accept a case, admonish, or yank the bit unless the

11695:

Anyway I have no idea why Nick-D chose to give you one but not one to Remsense but I can good reasons why it made sense and you've IMO proven the point on this thread. While you've been here for a while, it's apparent from what you've said and done in various places that you're still fairly

6089:

It's obvious that I cut parts of the quote to only highlight your attacks (hence the "...."), which is what is the point of this report. And by all means, please show the diff that says I rejected a source because it was by an Arab, because such diff doesn't exist. All I did was mention

2772:

You are underestimating how much information a dedicated person can find about a person online. One photo can compromise location, one shared username(or even email) could expose private accounts, email and some money is all that is necessary to reveal personal information collected by

6256:

does not support removing everything to suit xenophobic tendencies. And again they're the figures being used in modern scholarship, as elaborated in the talk page. What is this nonsense? In addition their ad hominem against my contributions are baseless, they actually resulted in a

3387:

I have attended to 1. modified RfC by changing the query 2. including the supplementary material and being prepared to include further supplementary materials till you cease gagging the process 3. and using every available method to allay the worries of any participating editors .

13446:

Well, I'm not sure I'd say you "deserved it", but you did have a lot of opportunities to get off this path, and you didn't take them. But it's going to be okay. Mostly what you've done is driven a bunch of people crazy, and we'll get over it. Let's find you something else to do.

2661:

I have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry into, amongst other things sexual abuse of the charity's beneficiaries at an RNIB facility in Coventry. The content is supported by national news outlets considered reliable for contentious statements;

6495:. I have no interest in some racist xenophobe. How many Editors has this user scared off wikipedia, followed by them running around talking about how the grandeur of their contribution, how many contributions of higher value has their existence prevented by his terror tactics? 4608:

Focusing on my alleged ethnicity. I don't care what they claim, E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". "Porsian" is a not a word. Clearly, they meant "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.

11712:

and am also not an admin so I'm not familiar with what standards are nowadays, but I can reasonably see without the warning admins would have been reluctant to block you since you were genuinely confused what edit warning was and there had been no recent attempt to inform you.

9280:) looked especially unwarranted, as well as 8 IP blocks that were anywhere from 1-10 years that I shortened because I felt them excessive. There were several more that I thought were questionable but within reasonable admin discretion, so I left those alone. Graham87's response 4214:

Still don’t know which personal attack you guys accusing me of. he called my edits 'non-neutral', simply because I tagged his language and not the other, and I told him in return that your comments are 'too persian' not following wiki rules. What is there to accuse me of here?

9981:

A short aside re school blocks: I started blocking schools more aggressively after noticing that some IP's would have gaps of years in ther contributions, and figuring out that was due to long-term range blocks by other admins ... so I emulated and perhaps overextended those.

14062:

Could an admin please semi-protect talk:Hassan_Nasrallah for two days? The amount of IP vandalism and disruption, much of it openly racist and derogatory, is at levels I've never seen. I requested at RfPP but the backlog there is very heavy and urgent action would be needed.

11383:

I hold you responsible only for your part of the edit war. You did not believe that you were involved in an edit war. I have explained that there really was an edit war underway. Your part in the edit war might be smaller, but that doesn't mean that there was no edit war.

2260:, before this discussion snowballs into sanctions, can you stop participating in these identified AFDs? I'm sure you have already made your opinions known at this point. But this step would be a start in curbing some of your behavior which has been identified as problematic. 2686:

to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary. What steps can be taken to de-escalate this matter while preserving the article's independense and objectivity? What legal rights do I have as a content creator on this

10225:. Happymappy took to continuing to reinstate their unsourced additions, as well as disrupt Willondon's user and talk pages. Happymappy has created a very obvious sock account, called Happymappy123, seemingly to get around their p-block on Carlisle Public Schools imposed by 8291:

So on balance I would conclude it was someone close to Lerro, or otherwise involved in his movement, but perhaps not paid specifically for this work (for which they were evidently unsuited). Maybe it was an agent who was doing this as well as other non-wiki related duties.

4585: 10772:

situation. This maybe goes hand-in-hand with an increasingly "legalistic" approach to Knowledge, especially among newer editors: they want a case and they want a ruling and they want precedent. I really wish there was something the community could do to tamp down on this.

5021:

That sort of false equivalence is, I'd suggest, really quite offensive. Anybody being racially abused, in any walk of life, clearly has an absolute right to file a report and for that report to be taken seriously. To imply that raising such a report is itself an abuse is

8345:

Most of the BLP articles listed at the top of this thread contain a sentence in the lede along the lines of "is an adherent of the Empathic movement". The relevant sentence always(?) seems to be cited to a webpage for the book mentioned by Liz, which includes a list of

5647:. Not building the encyclopedia, not collaborating, not communicating, not respecting copyright in images, previously inserted errors and copyright-violating text into articles, repeatedly made nonsense AfC submissions, all despite many messages and warnings. Enough. 4898:

The "Porsian" comment is suggestive, but I've seen weirder typos happen. Given Zemen's imperfect grasp of English, I don't think it's beyond the pale to suggest it could have been an honest mistake. Similarly, the "childish" exchange I could chalk up to translation

7573:

Please explain how Gingeksace and Nihaon have the same editing style and agenda, but are never editing on Knowledge at the same time, and can frequently be seen to tag one another in and out through the course of a single day. You operate both accounts, don't you?

3881:

If my logic is satisfactory here: if a single other editor was to indicate they would've done anything but oppose in that RfC, then I was totally in the wrong to close it, and would naturally more seriously reconsider my future calculus with this incident in mind.

4902:

Even discounting those, there remains a core of incivility which should be addressed. The biggest one is the focus on nationality; I'd expect anyone who said, "Of course a Mexican would think X" or "Naturally a Czech would believe Y" would get a swift block for

13649:, I agree with you that it would help with familiarizing one with GA, FA, or FL criteria, but at the moment I don't feel comfortable letting them proceed without the guidance of mentors, which to me is a less destructive alternative than independent reviewing. 2800:

on the platform, there is nothing much we can do. Even if there is, it would likely result in a block on that account making the threat. As for your offline personality being known, there's nothing much we can do. You may have to seek legal advice on your own.

1515:

This editor has never replied to any messages on their Talk page, so I have to assume that they have never read them. They probably don't even realize that anyone is sending them messages. I'm not sure how to contact them in another way to get their attention.

10004:

User:DanielTokenhouse has made persistent controversial edits to various articles implying that the subjects harbour Anti-English/British sentiment or to question whether or not they are English, British or Irish. Most of these edits are without any sources.

7530:

As far as I can see that post is an obvious tacit confession of what is going on here. Otherwise why would a non-COI editor suggest that COI concerns are irrelevant if the subject is notable and that in their opinion there should be far more latitude on COI

4233:, placing notices like the ones you've received is a very normal thing that editors do here, to give some explanation for why they are reverting another user's edits. You need to be able to receive these notices without perceiving them as personal attacks. @ 6446:

then and add that note instead. Why the double standards? I left the note, added nuance. They removed nuance. I added non-Arab sources which are used by modern historians, and they still removed it. Ibn Khaldun already did the work "modern" historians do.

9365:

for some of the blocks is remarkably childish. "I raised it to five years because they complained that three years was too long". I hate spammy editors as much as anyone but the block of MarcArchives00 was an utter abuse of power. It also appears Graham87

9809:

Having attempted to deal with the oldest of the appeals a few weeks ago, which was extremely time consuming and led to a quick burnout, I want to say that I saw many of your comments at the appeals and found them thoughtful and helpful. So thank you.--

4996:

dispute with, even if they're dicks. (For one thing, if you remain calm and they nevertheless double down on being a dick, it's very easy to tell that the issue is, indeed, that they're not the slightest bit interested in building an encyclopedia.) --

9969: 9463:

Thank you for lifting that block, The Wordsmith. I came across them when I deleted that draft and they had such a brief contribution history, I didn't see anything blockable. As for sanctions, in my limited experiences, cases like this are posted on

5089:, what I was talking about was the behaviour on the talk pages, not the act of bringing the question to ANI. I see that's not fully clear from my original post, and I'm happy to apologize for that, and for describing the behaviour as "bullying". -- 1974:

I welcome new users when I have time to do so. Also being a user with over 5000 edits, it would be very dumb of me to think that this welcoming of users will "bury" my edit history. The welcoming of users is done as my everyday interest and nothing

11641:

If I'm being singled out for an incident where blame is clearly shared by another editor, there is nothing wrong with me pointing out. Your willingness to turn a blind eye to Remsense's part in said edit war clearly shows your bias in this matter.

3769:

You really ought to be WAY less combative if you want to collaborate with other people. If things worked like your template warnings would lead us to believe there would be very few editors left that didn't get blocked. This isn't the way to go. –

2709:. The article's "independence" and objectivity does not now seem to be at stake. As far as what dealings you and your family might have with UK law enforcement, that's not part of Knowledge's remit, nor does the WMF have any authority over that. 9866:

explicators first, and it's always best to avoid the block. And I see both in the discussion above and in the user talk examples cited here and at Wikipediocracy, Graham87 getting frustrated. And trying again and again in the same vein of comment.

9398:

on the basis they had engaged in overlinking in their first edits and hadn't been on here in a while and didn't immediately request an unblock). What's the point of the unblock process if such an obviously inappropriate block is allowed to stand?

9823:

I've tried to be at least mildly helpful when I can be. I figure any question that I or another editor can field is one less thing to deal with for you or Yamla or 331dot or any of the others. I know what a workload it is for you and the others.

7811:

Unfortunately the attempt to make the two accounts look different by using different forms of edit summaries gave you away. How could that possibly have happened other than intentionally, and what possible intent could there have been except to

1794:

My intent was never to be aggressive or dominate, the intent was to clear misunderstandings and nothing else as most users may not be aware of how Indian Power Sector is structured or work, so yeah, let us let the closer evaluate the consensus.

11699:

By comparison Remsense is experienced enough that they really should know what edit warning is, and their responses seem to have been much more accepting of their mistakes than you further re-enforcing this PoV. While there's also debate about

9677: 9624:(which is how I found them ... and isn't in any sort of tutorial) set off alarm bells. I knew that asking for me to review their unblock request probably wasn't what they meant but by then their general evasiveness was getting to me. And they 3736:

situation. Very strange that DwilfaStudwell's fourth edit was to template warning an experienced user. Now this user is opening up a discussion here. This doesn't seem like a editor who is here to improve the project or work well with others.

10998:(I also did two reverts. I revert twice and thrice much more than I'd like, I will admit. I think I'm at my worst when I revert twice and thrice without being particularly communicative or helpful, and I could've been better here I guess.) 10673:

answers I want, you can at least point me in the direction of a page or forum where I can find others who are. If you are sincere in wanting me to be a more constructive part of Knowledge, you should have no problem doing this much for me.

2163: 2117: 2081:

I reviewed all of them and before-hand and nominated for merger. I'm not aware of WP:WELCOMING, now I am. Pune airport name change did occur and citations can be found too in the article, I added more than 1 citation regarding name change.

11331:

happen so that might be something for the admins to look into because I don't know how that happened. Back to the matter at hand, one of the edits which you are referring is a notice I posted at the top of the page indicating the lede for

10405:

a valuable part of the project and this doesn't appear to be a productive use of it. Perhaps I’m overreacting, so I’m presenting this here for comment. If the community believes this is a productive use of resources, I’ll drop it. Thanks!

1593:

general editing area, broadly construed. A reminder to Thewikizoomer that this topic-ban applies to the individual, not the account, and any attempt to start editing with a new account to evade this sanction will see that account blocked.

13725:

over their first review back before final decisions are made. I know this creates extra work for others but personally I’m more than happy to take on this extra responsibility and I think it would be beneficial for everyone in involved.

2458: 10012:

The user has changed the ethnonyms on the articles for Johnny Marr, Kirsty MacColl, Andy Farrell, Liam Farrell, Owen Farrell, Steve Coogan, John Squire and Ian Brown, to state they are Irish, without any source stating they identify as

15247:) has repeatedly made minor edits (Changing a month to the following month, for future planned events) without reference. He has been told not to on his talk page. This behavior is essentially the entirety of the user's contributions. 10464:. Now, please respond in detail to other editor's concerns about your use of the RFC process. Do you have a good understanding of the circumstances when an RFC is the best solution, as opposed to situations when less dramatic forms of 9619:

I've gone and done the unblock and we'll see what happens. The Indian entrepreneur bit of their user page (the combination of the two, because it seems to be a hotspot of paid editing) plus their tendency to make very minor edits like

9178:

Having taken a quick look at the article in question, I'd have to suggest that at least some of the complaints about it may be entirely legitimate. It appears to include, amongst other things, unsourced allegations of rape and murder.

7895:

If you read again all you will find the answer... I talked about the possibilities at your question... But if to tell you one reason will mean to have attacks on me I prefer you immagine by yourself which of that possibilities ragards

11691:

their warning was just a typical editor to editor warning, it wasn't an admin saying they'd block you if you continued down that path. So if it came to it, any blocking would have considered the behaviour of all involved as relevant.

8283:

The number of times that the same ambitious plan has been put into action, affecting more than one version of Knowledge, suggests it was paid, as does the sheer amount of time that was being spent in creating and developing so many

4281:. I did read that talk page before making my initial comment, and I think you would have gotten much further with more patience. Please try to work things out, rather than further provoking editors who are already clearly upset. -- 7815:

It did occur to me at one point earlier today that I must be looking at two different people taking turns using the same computer - but obviously if it had been something as innocent as that you would have said it a long time ago.

7507:

One other thing, I note that when directly questioned on COI the user Gingeksace has responded along the lines of (and I paraphrase) “never mind about the COI, just concentrate on whether Lerro is notable or not”, for example here

4487:

What do you want from me now?? I wouldn't lie to anyone to do it for you, you apparently know nothing about the ADVKu keyboard recommendation system. Plus I didn't call you childish, but your thoughts and accusations are childish.

2876:

And really, it's not believable at all. Only in lurid fiction and tabloid fantasies can one find omniscient charities who can mobilize squads of brownshirts at the drop of an utterly unremarkable username. We're being BSed here.

1675: 13791: 7534:

Over the last 3 years the user has made 761 edits to the article for Menotti Lerro and 392 edits to the article for Empathism, as well as making a further c.2,000 edits to other Lerro-related articles (most of which they created

3916:

I doubt I'd ever have gotten to the point of agreeing with the RFC (whatever it was supposed to mean). There were good reasons to believe that conversation wouldn't go anywhere, but closing the discussion guaranteed it wouldn't.

3178:

My apologies, seriously: I should've been far less impulsive, and more willing to listen to the type of editor that can pick up all this lingo and knowledge of site procedure over the course of 30 edits made in less than a day.

11354:

I see one reversion (though edit warring isn't limited strictly to reversions) by you and three by another editor. That's one bold edit plus four reversions within 72 minutes, which is easily into the edit warring territory.

11094:

is an issue I consider worthy of continued debate. If the sticking point to my continued involvement in said discussion is that I presented no reliable sources in support of my argument, then I am more than willing to provide

6124:

judge for yourselves. I even asked for arbitration, but the user here did not relent. The user appears to be the xenophobic here, using personal affiliation as bases. I have no knowledge of his person to base that on anything.

5810:

No kidding. I'm not going to act on Liz's warning, since I can't find the vandalism she's talking about, but I hope one of that editor's next edits is an apology and not more inventively rude vandalism, for their own sake. --

4006:

Focusing on my alleged ethnicity again. E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". Clearly, he means "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.

3668:, it is pretty evident that even a new RFC (even with more sources) wouldn't yield any different result. Remsense isn't abusing the system, your RFC was soundly rejected and the responses on it explain pretty well why it was. 10563:, consider yourself formally warned for your suboptimal conduct regarding RFCs and I urge you to behave appropriately regarding RFCs in the future. You have used up your assumption of good faith in this area, so be cautious. 9683:

tools in disputes where they could be considered substantially involved. At this point, no formal sanctions are enacted, without prejudice to opening a new case some time in the future should problems of this nature persist.

3083:

The police banged on your door in the middle of the night, didn't bring any tools to forcibly enter, just left after waking up the entire street, and then went to your parents' house to ... mosey around? Pull the other one.

10917:

seems another example of this, where Emiya1980 has in the last 24 hours or so started an edit war and dispute on a much debated topic in an overwise stable and high profile article based purely on their personal views (see

7766:

Sorry, it was not you "mocking" indeed. But anyway that was very bad behaviour... About myself, I did not do any abuse, what would be the reason for me to do that when I could with a single account? Anyway... All the best

9582:

when the user was apparently being receptive of advice and I don't see anything in their recent contributions to warrant such a quick block, especially since they ceased editing mainspace after the "really weird feeling"

3319:

I respectfully request that you reconsider your inadvertent reversal. It appears to be hindering open discussion on the talk page. Please allow the community to thoroughly explore alternative perspectives on this matter.

1738: 9877:

template that puts their page in the category. And anyone can make a mistake; with the best will in the world, an admin will sometimes make a block that, after reading what the blockee has to say, they decide to reverse.

12038:

into articles that have no corresponding references. I was patiently leaving warning messages at all these IP pages, but apparently they either don't see them or ignore them. I guess it is time to start issuing blocks.

7719:

Let me say even for a bank robbery there are not so many ivestigations and strong wish to prove something pretty seconday in all this. But I understood it is your main interest in all this. It is fine than. Cheers! :-)

4074:

and I'm against it, I didn’t even know what you meant that time. All that aside, why is "good that you understood your purpose. good look" a bad thing? btw it's my talk page, laughing or eating chips, not your problem.

13186:

in meeting community standards. They have received numerous warnings from numerous editors, most of which received no response, acknowledgment of error, or commitment to improvement. Below are the most recent of them.

6610:

I'm actually here to add that the reason why that note isn't inplace of every single Greco-Persian battle instead of figures is because they have more eyes on them, hence corrupting the article wouldn't be as tenable.

2412: 15022: 9492:

I've skimmed through all of the accounts blocked by Graham87 over the last six months. I only took a brief look, and many of them are routine, but a few stood out. I ask that an uninvolved admin review the blocks of

2791: 12308: 12252: 4259:. The worst of these attacks is no doubt "Poorsian", which is just xenophobic and has no place on this site, yet they clearly don't care. I have already tried to work out stuff with them, such as the afromentioned 3595:

While it's frustrating to respond to, I am sympathetic to people who might have limited comfort writing in English and might be apprehensive about it, or think the LLM or machine translation is smarter than it is.

14133: 12196: 9306: 5014:. I agree with The Hand That Feeds You, that was an appalling comment to make in response to an editor rightly reporting being repeatedly attacked, especially as some of the attacks were clearly on ethnic grounds. 3775: 3682:

I've done things like close RFCs where I was pretty sure I was right and someone else disagreed. As such, I got reverted and life goes on. That isn't happening here, because no one else agrees with your premises.

1501:

reverted or are otherwise problematic. Although the editor has been editing for only a year, the editor has over 3,000 edits and should have attended to his talk page warnings and stopped disruptive edits by now.

9880:

You've been promising to be nicer, but also try to be clearer. In particular, explain more from the start, and change tacks if the person isn't getting it. That could include linking to simpler explanations like

2727:

In terms of due weight. I mean, it's difficult to balance the POV when the secondary coverage of the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since with the possible exception of election accessibility.

15145: 10762:

says "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". RfCs are a heavyweight process which should only really be used when other, less time-intensive, methods have failed. Unfortunately there seems (e.g.

3547:

I have secondary sources to support my claim, and I would like the opportunity to properly present the RFC. I believe that the RFC process is a valuable tool for resolving disputes and ensuring that WP:NPOV are

7849:

Denying it is no good, because it can be demonstrated that that was indeed happening. In the absence of a plausible explanation the only possibility is that you created the two accounts with intent to deceive.

4709:

If anyone is getting "bullied" and should be "upset" that is me. I tire of constantly being attacked due to my background by new users with barely any edits and who ultimately end up getting indeffed for being

1820:— I find Thewikizoomer's behaviour to be very problematic, for example they responded to scope_creep's comments with the exact same comment beginning with "Oppose merge all" in bold despite them already voting 7845:

I want to be entirely fair here, so I'll give you another chance. Can you explain why the two accounts were never online at the same time and used different edit summaries to make them look like different end

7588:

Also, for the sake of transparency, this would be a good opportunity for you to clarify what your connection is to Lerro. Let's be honest, you aren't just someone who once asked him for some photos, are you?

3519:

Unfortunately, due to my current travel schedule, I am unable to devote the necessary time to further escalate this matter at present. However, I intend to follow up on this issue as soon as possible upon my

15017: 14490: 9315:

This seems like a prelude to an ARBR request (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Wordsmith). After reading through Graham87's talk page, the previous ANI thread, and the WPO thread, I would support such.

4119:

Everything you say is nonsense, look I can tell you so. If you think everything I say now and in the future is 'nonsense' why don't you try to avoid me? why do you keep replying? you're almost bothering me.

2944:

delete general information from the lead, absolutely not. I'd suggest GDX420 is outright blocked from the page and everyone else gets involved in resetting it and rebalancing the article and removing undue.

775: 13981:

As someone who has been involved in this often the person in question wouldn’t be very communicative and often didn’t respond to talk page messages or would just not seem to take other advice on the topic.

11572:

I'm perfectly capable of on that article going forward if you are: if there's anything here others need to worry about, it would be the longer-term patterns of behavior that said tiny incidents constitute.

6275:

Proving that you seem unable to interact in a consructive manner with editors who disagree with you, unable to stick to comments about the topic rather than editors and, last but not least, unable to avoid

1691:

well. I'd like a couple of weeks of clear discussion so it can come to a consensus without interference. The editor has made his point clearly in all three Afds. Can somebody have a chat with the editor.

15089:) I suspect an unnamed editor who recently argued with me is behind this IP address, but since I have no proof, I'm hoping something can be done to the IP for this personal attack/harassment. Thank you. — 12302: 12274: 12246: 12162: 12106: 10943:

so this feels a draconian application of the edit-war ban; especially considering I consented to the reverting editor's recommendation for a discussion after being reverted only twice. Most significantly,

740:

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are

12961:

Well, I was "forgiven" for posting a warning notice to their User talk page earlier this month. Looking into this point of disagreement, I'm wondering if there is any connection between SinisterUnion and

10009:

For the articles of Rich Peppiatt, Steve Coogan, Miriam Margolyes and John Oliver, they have implied they have renounced their British citizenship without any source, which has been reverted in all cases.

6576:, and the reason why we are having this conversation here in the first place. Instead of letting the reader judge for themselves, the users here act as censors to tell the reader what they ought to think. 12218: 12190: 12134: 7830:

ok, I see and now I understand a bit. Yes if I would have used two accounts on a same PC changing like that sistematically it would be very intentionally. I can confirm I did not do it. Have a nice day.

4723: 2418:

issues and is causing alot of problems in ARBIPA topic area. Therefore, I propose that Thewikizoomer be topic banned from all articles related to ARBIPA (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) broadly construed.

806: 801: 11704:, this does seem a definite case where a simple "cut out the edit warring" message was sufficient for Remsense if need be but an attempt to explain the problem even if via a template to you made sense. 6074:

Even non-Arab sources were rejected for this user to suit their bias. Even if those primary sources were cited by people being cited in the main article. And I don't even know if the user is Persian or

15140: 10090:, surely a highly contentious claim, and they provided no reference to a reliable source. Worth noting is that Peppiatt apparently still lives in the UK, in Belfast. Similarly with the far more famous 7705:. They all have the same editing pattern of making large numbers of small edits minutes apart over periods of perhaps an hour or two. It's obviously not credible that these are all separate end users. 5362:

That was after I blocked them, and if they haven't gotten any of their talk page messages, they won't have much reason to understand why their user page spontaneously evaporated in the first place. --

9220: 695: 8970: 4832: 1530:

With my talk page warnings I also pinged the editor. I don't think we can assume he's not reading them versus the editor is just ignoring them. Also, the editor hasn't learned from repeated reverts.

9259:) he had made back in February 2024. I checked and it seemed to be a completely unfounded block based on "padding his edit count" by doing the tutorial that we show to new users plus a deleted stub 11664:. They admit that their behavior wasn't ideal, and they're working on ideas to improve. We don't need to make a big deal out of it, because they've already said everything that needs to be said. 8653: 5404:

Whilst it may, theoretically, be misuse of their user page why not put a message there, referring to the discussions and user:talk warnings - at least we know (assume?) they read their user-page.

3204:

Thank you for acknowledging your error. The Request for Comments has been reopened, and additional secondary sources have been incorporated. I invite you to participate in the renewed discussion.

2848:

And thirded. I have never seen the UK described like that, except by very ignorant people from other countries who were disappointed that I didn't know Prince Charles (as he then was) personally.

14803: 10100:

No, he publicly renounced his British citizenship. He’s stated on more than one occasion he’s ashamed of his association with the “shithole” country and never wants to be associated with it again

3581:

shows lack of respect for the people you're addressing. You don't even seem to be giving it sensible instructions ("Thank you for your attention to this matter.") Stop it before you're blocked.

2121: 2038: 1846: 9263:

that looked promotion-ish but hardly worth a block without discussion. I lifted the block and left a message on Graham's talkpage, then went back and checked all his blocks from September 2024.

6220:

Apparently the user is unable to use actual words, again utilising wiki interface as their weapon of misuse. And those citations aren't poor, they're all we have. The user is being ridiculous.

5025:

You've made a serious error of judgement and it would be better if you were to acknowledge that fact and apologise, rather than seeking to reframe your involvement in a positive light, as above.

13391: 10766: 9909:

and I think studying the ones around my position (#40 for now) seems like the best approach ... and seeing how many people do indeed come back after a block (zero on a quick check of blocks by

6067:"According to Daryaee, "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This is 4237:, you need to be able to assume good faith and try to work things out more thoroughly before threatening other editors with ANI. If they're a sockpuppet, they'll step on a rake soon enough. -- 4743:, not even bothering to read the Safavid Kurdistan article, which does not support Zemens replacement, as the Kurdistan province did not extend that far. Go on, say that I am "bullying" them. 4469:

Feel free to explain how my "interpretations" are not good and what this so called "system" is, and what "Porsian" means, since it's not a synonym for Persian. I've given you more than enough

1870: 13112: 2142: 13845:(GAN, FAC, PR, etc). i want to emphasize to TheNuggeteer that everyone here wants the best for both you and the encyclopedia. de-stubbing sounds like a great way to continue contributing :) 7684:

It doesn't really matter what the reason is, it is still sockpuppetry. However, the real reason for the multiple accounts is presumably to allow you to make statements like this one, above,

4907:. I'm willing to extend AGF to its breaking point and accept that Zemen was alluding to a common argument, but even so it needs to be made clear that they must comment on edits, not editors. 11313:

The first two edits don't show a change in the flag size. They only show you copying the whole line (carefully preserved in their original form, with no changes at all) to a new location.

8643: 6590:

Are you done constantly tweaking your comment? Most readers aren't going to see all the changes you've made to it over the last 24 hours. Please stop constantly reviewing and altering it.

4371:

this report, whilst you haven't told them anything. Facing no repercussions from their actions, they will no doubt continue, especially as they clearly think their behaviour was justified.

3561:

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I respectfully request that the administrators intervene to ensure that the RFC is restored and that a fair and equitable resolution is reached.

9734:

would have been an start of acknowledging that was has happened is unacceptable. At the absolute bare minimum, Graham87 should no longer be blocking editors or reviewing unblock requests.

9329:; part of me still hopes for it. Given the response, either Graham's sense of when to block is far outside community norms or mine is so I'm not sure it can be avoided one way or another. 9059:

in a very short time, deleting old reliable sources and including bare URLs to questionable sources. User has received multiple warnings for this same behaviour on this same page in 2012.

15040: 12868:

I wonder if they are the same person, creating an illusion of a group, since they coincidentally want to improve the same articles about FIFA and football. We'll see if any socks appear.

8648: 7993:

This walled garden is full of some of the wordiest least penetrable articles ever put on Knowledge. It seems the only reason these articles haven't been instantly deleted is because of a

9078: 3506:. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue through Talk Page discussions and the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (ANI), I have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution. 11336:

was too long. For the record, I do in fact think the lede is unnecessarily detailed and contains two bloated paragraphs which could use some trimming. Again, however, I am only seeing

8727: 7374:

involved in what appears to be an orchestrated effort to promote Menotti Lerro & Empathism and their associates. Efforts were made to resolve the issues, see Gingeksace’s talk page

6713: 5901: 4323:

may be confused, or ignorant, or rude), you should try again. Engaging further right now, and getting into arguments on each other's user talk pages, is just going to make both of you

2862:

It would be more believable if one comes from a smaller country like myself, but even then, I wouldn't know everyone in this 42km-long island, neither do I expect everyone to know me.

11027:, I actually reverted Remsense only once during the incident in question. The original change I made to the infobox should not be counted as a reversion for purposes of edit-warring. 10082:

Although it would have been nice for the OP to have provided diffs, it only took a few minutes examining DanielTokenhouse's edits to see severe problems. For example, they wrote that

8854:

No worries. I am suspicious of non-standard domains as well as things get shady really fast with some TLDs. You could easily replace the .co with the .com and have it all still work.

8461: 7702:

accounts operating in the same topic area over the last 18 month can be seen by looking for the redlink users in the contribution history for Cilento International Poetry Prize, here

7686:

In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Knowledge

4621:

Yeah, what I expected, these words, I know what you want, on the pretext of 'Knowledge rules' (which I respect much) exactly what you don't want to see: 'Kurd' why don’t you go get ]?

4019:

Yeah, what I expected, these words, I know what you want, on the pretext of 'Knowledge rules' (which I respect much) exactly what you don't want to see: 'Kurd' why don’t you go get ]?

2988:

I hadn't seen that particular edit-summary and on that alone I have partially blocked GDX420 from the article. If I'd seen it at the time, that block might well have been site-wide.

6050: 6032:

I don't care who you are. I don't know who you are. I'm saying what your actions are doing. You are the hyper emotional one here, using clunky wiki interface as your weapon of abuse.

15163: 13244: 2792:

https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/support-and-safety/dealing-with-online-harassment-communication-best-practices/what-kind-of-support-can-the-wikimedia-foundation-offer

13835: 7485:

Looking at the Menotti Lerro article I noticed that although both of the users spend a lot of time there editing over extended periods they never seem to be there at the same time.

2962:"I believe the article's subject is weaponising the Online Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary" 13230: 8353:

Any comments on Empathism further down in the articles would obviously need to be treated on their merits, which in some cases may influence retaining the sentences in the lede.

6547: 13817: 12695: 12421:), disrupting existing reference/footnotes, widespread superfluous and disruptive cosmetic edits which, among others, include removing spaces, proper punctuation (violations of 6098:

is a historian (he doesn't use the word "worthless" either, more made up stuff), you're not - we base our info on academic sources, as you've already been told when I mentioned

8408: 3779: 2401:

when this board is exactly for highlighting a user's problematic behaviour. And that he is still continuing to misrepresent sources in order to defend his disruptive page move.

12956: 9957: 9310: 8559: 8502: 7542:

seems obvious. There is clearly something wrong when the connection has gone undeclared in over 3 years (and 3,000+ edits) despite various attempts to ask them to declare COI.

5877: 4433:

Claiming "Porsian" ("Poorsian") is a "typo", which I find it hard to believe, when O and E are not even close to each other, how could the "system" possibly change those two.

750: 728: 14989: 12755:, One of them just requested that an ArbCom case be opened against me. This is more than WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, from what I am seeing. They're just harrasing people now. 10646:

more specifically. It is also your obligation to fully take on board the legitimate concerns that other editors have raised about your RFC conduct. My warning is by no means

6533:: The reported editor seems unable to engage in a constructive manner when they have a disagreement with another editor, they comment on editors, not the topic and they make 4200:. Nobody 'deserves' incivility. If you wish to make amends, I suggest that you strike through the personal attacks and do not make any more. Would you be willing to do that? 15028: 7392: 7294: 6930: 12560: 9320: 8414:

I think they need to be nominated one-by-one, because there is the potential (and in at least one case actuality) of claims of notability unrelated to the promotionalism. —

8017: 1494: 1472: 12314: 12286: 12258: 12174: 12118: 8169: 4558:, Im glad you wrote this comment in this way, thank you very much for letting me know that my goal was not achieved properly, thanks again! I will try to improve on this. 2462: 2420: 11182:

on said page regarding the infobox issue which (as I've already indicated) is what happened here. Assuming you are characterizing my original change to the infobox as an

9685:

This has only further convinced me that every time an ANI discussion is closed without action, it's tacit permission to continue whatever behavior was being scrutinized.

2637: 12539: 12230: 12202: 12146: 9965:

OK, I'll watchlist talk pages of people I do block (not always possible for IP ranges though, obviously). Sometimes I do find their requests when checking contributions.

9302: 7150: 3771: 1772:

You're literally aggressively responding to every single comment, sometimes multiple times. These links read like you're clearly trying to dominate the conversation per

13304: 9973: 8254: 15151: 13767:(review, with assistance from IntentionallyDense, although he has said onwiki and offwiki he would appreciate another pair of eyes due to the subject's medical nature) 10110:

Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked this editor for BLP violations and also for persistent additions of unsourced content, POV pushing, and tendendtious editing.

9295: 8665: 3061:

and changed its name to The National Institute for the Blind, or NIB, to reflect its status as a national body involved in all aspects of the welfare of blind people.

2428: 1683: 1059: 1054: 1049: 1044: 1039: 1034: 1029: 1024: 1019: 1014: 1007: 1002: 997: 992: 987: 982: 977: 972: 967: 962: 14384:

I am kind of confused. From what I can see on their profile I don’t think they are an evader. Or did they edit their profile? I can see a decent edit made by them on

13191: 5548:

they're adding citations of unacceptable sources, and we already have a better article. It seems as if they're just using the user page to play at making an article.

4062: 1905:, I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to bury their edit history in order to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to state that Thewikizoomer is aware of 14981: 13813: 11157:

says Emiya "started an edit war"; Emiya's response is basically to claim that there was no violation of 3RR. Both of these statements can be true at the same time.

8350:

would be best for the claims to just be removed from each of the articles? At the end of the day the relevant sentences in the ledes are perhaps best viewed as spam.

7174: 6198:, that does not make a xenophobe, using my "personal afflilation", "using clunky wiki interface as a weapon of abuse", or any of your other accusations. As for your 1737:

If anything is undesirable here, that is trying to create hostility by using words such as "one more comment and I'll take you to WP:ANI" like an involved user said

1679: 13216: 11990: 9394:, intended for "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy") and disappointingly the unblock request was twice declined (first by 7472: 7460:

E qui si precisa, ugualmente a gran voce, che le speculazioni armate ad arte dall’indomito teatrante, palesano ulteriormente una pomposa esaltazione ben conosciuta.

6428:

to me, as described. (Note that in the example I said was acceptable, the ancient historian's statement is immediately answered by one from a modern historian.) --

2575: 9260: 1687: 237: 11145:

means "more than once"; it does not mean "more than three times within 24 hours". Also, the definition of an edit war doesn't technically have to involve reverts

9120: 6069:

pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars

5376:

Either they've created that very quickly - at LLM speed - or they'd already spent time off-wiki creating a new article on a subject on which we already have one.

11661: 8542: 7431: 7366: 7114: 7108: 5741: 2753: 949: 15205:

reverted me again with the summary "Reverting vandalism by gay Paki". The attacks seem persistent and I'm not sure how to handle it except reporting it here. —

9676:

For a further look, I pulled up recent ANI posts involving Graham87's admin actions. There have been several of varying merit, but the most relevant one was in

2682:

street and when they didn't get a response they went to my sick elderly parent's house and woke them up too. I believe the article's subject is weaponising the

14129: 13734: 12434: 11879: 11820: 10132: 8573: 8445: 7156: 6057:

opinion expressed by the note that they left is being described as "worthless, meaning that an opinion saying the same thing about 'persians' would be equally

5634: 5183: 2512: 2478: 425: 10732:

This response reads like you still intend to push RfCs as a way to force your changes into articles when other editors disagree with you. Also, be careful of

6206:. We're not going to ignore the policies of this website merely because you oppose them, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to constantly attack me. 2698: 1510: 15070: 13805: 12371: 12073: 12045: 11246:

Ok, what I am about to say may seem far-fetched but is genuinely the truth. I have no recollection of consciously editing the size of the Soviet flag in the

10052: 9246: 8423: 7234: 7210: 6968: 5606: 5439: 5339: 5119: 5111: 3864: 3752: 3651: 3562: 3407: 3389: 3321: 3205: 3164: 2598: 2452: 1299: 1294: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1274: 1269: 1264: 1259: 1254: 1247: 1242: 1237: 1232: 1227: 1222: 1217: 1212: 1207: 1202: 1075: 953: 831: 762: 496: 13715: 11442:. So you can excuse me if I feel at least one of the editors calling me out in this situation is somewhat biased in their application of Knowledge's rules. 9728: 4935: 2553: 13823: 13809: 10173: 9108: 8742: 8431: 8219: 7034: 5771: 4871: 2379: 1181: 1176: 1171: 1166: 1161: 1156: 1151: 1146: 1141: 1136: 1129: 1124: 1119: 1114: 1109: 1104: 1099: 1094: 1089: 1084: 13052: 12023: 10768:)to be an increasing trend of users jumping straight to RfC immediately on getting any pushback, or as a kind of last roll of the dice when they are in a 9458: 9444: 7180: 4802: 15256: 14492: 14379: 14234: 13694: 13406: 12682:

as an example). They have been warned several times about this now. Apologies if this is formatted improperly, this is only my second-ever report here.

12007: 11250:

infobox as set forth in your link. One of the reasons I want to point this out is something strange happened like this before around a week ago. Over at

9743: 9540: 8907: 8873:

On the English Knowledge you probably should switch it. .co is the TLD for Colombia - that is why the IPs version of the link has a Spanish-language UI.

8767: 8659: 8513: 8491: 8473: 8159: 7072: 7060: 6768: 3415: 2673: 2165:

The fact you have misinterpreted and misrepresented these sources to portray an approval of a proposal as an actual rename serves as a testament to your

1066: 383: 182: 14435:

I will also keep a lookout for concerning contributions from Hexerade. I have just looked at the revision from Northern Moonlight. Have an amazing day!

14002: 13967:

I support a six-month ban too. I just don't understand why these things that were referenced above had to be said so often, why it had to come to this.

13761:. In view of this, I will outline some of their pending nominations or reviews at GAN, DYK, and FLC. Anybody is welcome to volunteer to take over them. 13504: 11872: 5242: 2518: 1557: 1539: 15193: 13479:) suggesting that they chip in here with what they like doing. With any luck, we can find them a backlog that they’ll enjoy, and can benefit the wiki. 12863: 8975: 8274: 8233: 8095: 8063: 8032: 7360: 4773: 4752: 3677: 3502:

I am writing to formally request the restoration of the Request for Comments (RFC) that I initiated regarding a content dispute and user conduct with @

3472: 2530: 2495: 2338: 2324: 1767: 1350: 1193: 1071: 13931:

seems appropriate; they're clearly well-intentioned and willing to work on improvement and I think will become a valuable contributor to the project.

13561: 13490: 13007: 12839: 9853: 9769: 9408: 8562:

has been spamming AI-generated unblock requests 5 times in their talk page, someone please cover the user's mouth up with a duct tape and shut it up.

8172:

is quite revealing; I agree that the excuses by Rainermaria27 sound a lot like Gingeksace. The Lerro AfD on en-WP from 2015 is also very interesting:

3802: 1804: 1789: 15076: 14894: 14157: 13991: 13797: 13518: 12650: 10727: 9895: 9797: 9783: 9637: 9614: 8187: 8046: 7040: 6623: 6601: 5720: 4920: 3764: 3093: 2306: 2232: 2218: 2198: 2184: 2153: 2137: 2111: 2091: 2076: 1987: 1753: 1525: 937: 932: 927: 922: 917: 912: 907: 902: 897: 892: 885: 880: 875: 870: 865: 860: 855: 850: 845: 840: 15004: 9707: 9337: 8588: 6752: 6738: 5696: 5542: 5265: 5098: 5080: 5005: 4442: 4417: 4399: 4380: 4358: 4336: 4312: 4290: 4272: 3016: 2857: 15046: 14456: 14444: 14430: 14415: 14397: 14364: 13801: 13532: 13468: 13253: 12363: 12280: 12168: 12112: 10749: 9267: 9188: 8801: 8374:

I don't think we need to speculate on whether the editors adding this content are fans, subjects, or publicists in order to push back against it. —

8301: 7354: 7342: 7336: 7330: 6680: 6672: 6665: 6615: 6577: 6504: 6496: 6486: 6448: 6421: 6407: 6349: 6308: 6270: 6262: 6243: 6229: 6221: 6215: 6185: 6177: 6170: 6152: 6144: 6118: 6084: 6076: 5918: 5442:

that they've just uploaded claiming they're the copyright holder, that it's their own work and that it was created today. It's also at unsplash.com

4986: 4824: 3717: 3703: 3659: 3645: 3589: 3570: 3440: 3355: 3316:

Thank you for bringing the oversight in the question to my attention. I should have included a reference to the secondary source in the discussion.

3238: 3213: 3199: 1924: 274: 141: 15199: 14051: 13748: 13638: 12337: 11780: 11755: 11673: 11393: 11364: 11349: 11322: 11308: 11232: 11199: 11166: 9557: 9425: 8953:

I meant to block that IP, while allowing accounts from that IP to edit. Also, 99.175.18.1, is registered to School District 57, Prince George, BC

7945: 2871: 2843: 2612: 1719:

And also my inputs were civil, reasonable, and much needed for reaching consensus. The discussions available at Afds are self explanatory to this.

1701: 14851: 14818: 12782: 12768: 12718: 12224: 12140: 10914: 10782: 10094:

who, as is widely known, became a US citizen in 2019. But dual citizenship is a thing and many people are citizens of both the US and the UK. At

9350: 9210: 8383: 8117: 8077: 7743: 7679: 7216: 7144: 7126: 5863: 5820: 5805: 5786: 5667:

How many times have they remade this page, with Copyvios, now? Aren’t we supposed to come down hard on folks who don’t take the hint on copyvios?

5218: 5198: 4971: 3497: 3397: 3382: 3329: 3274: 3070: 1969: 827: 758: 415: 15169: 14484: 13576: 12879: 12820: 12806: 12747: 11052:. If you were going to open a discussion on the matter, that's an engagement that requires a certain type of munition: arguments predicated in 10370:

All of these RFCs ended with the status quo except for Woodrow Wilson. The editor has been approached about creating too many RFCs on this topic

9991: 9151: 9141: 6671:

running around talking about how they have positive contributions, how many better contributions, better editors has their existence prevented?

6456: 6437: 6415: 6365: 5557: 3746: 2983: 2955: 2887: 2827: 2669: 15271: 15034: 14115: 13892: 12993: 11958: 11918: 11451: 11378: 11125: 11078: 10993: 10903: 10876: 10858: 10817: 10701: 10682: 10536: 10513: 10495: 10477: 9202: 8100:

For anyone wishing to avoid reading through the 2015 SPI linked to the 2015 AfD which Allan pointed out above, the brief version is as follows:

7240: 6650: 6585: 6331: 6316: 6286: 5371: 5333: 5309: 4537: 4523: 4482: 4464: 4251:

Sorry, but I don't think that Zemen is a sockpuppet? And I was not threatening them, I was warning them, which I did after they had engaged in

4129: 4114: 4084: 3940: 3052: 2373: 378: 14072: 14032: 12911:

Well, that was predictable. New editors wanting to "revolutionize" Knowledge do not have the patience to wait out a week or month-long block.

11621: 11592: 11550: 11508: 11481: 11036: 11018: 10659: 9833: 9818: 9094: 8625: 6639: 5713: 5413: 4704: 4699: 4692: 4689: 4431: 4224: 4209: 4138:

and it's a typo, I used it on my keyboard before so the system set that. I didn't write this on purpose, it's childish to blame me with that.

3821: 2411:. He made a page move request today by citing that the target name was more popular in Google books ngram, when in reality it's the opposite. 14693: 13948: 12727: 11907: 9483: 9100: 9045: 8962: 8948: 8689: 8457: 8362: 8178:. Then the PR campaign moved back to en-WP in 2021. It has been quite a persistent effort, more than just a random "fan" or two of the poet. 7922: 7908: 7890: 7876: 7859: 7840: 7825: 7806: 7791: 7776: 7761: 7729: 7714: 7664: 7649: 7613: 7583: 7568: 7426:. While I am not claiming Menotti Lerro is not notable, his article is supported with a lot of local sourcing, and sources by his professor, 5357: 5038: 3616: 2739: 2719: 2285: 1894:

I have noticed your actions on the NTPC Power Plant pages I created as per WP:NBUILDING rule. This seems to be driven by a sense of vengeance

1603: 14468: 14217: 14195: 14015: 13624: 13607: 13439: 13425: 12922: 12906: 12495: 11651: 11636: 10979: 10957: 10930: 9169: 8919: 7525:

do not be so focused on the "COI problem" and help the page to be developed if earned a place on this 💕. Life is too short to be so strict

6704:. If they have a change of heart, they can request an unblock and contribute to the encyclopedia without casting aspersions at other users. 5837: 5433: 4567: 4246: 4187: 4169: 4022:

nt: my talk page history, which is common mistakes made by new users, is irrelevant. and im right that youre a farsist (maybe اطلاعات) glo.

2810: 1938: 1548:

has resumed editing, without response here or even to the polite message on their usertalk requesting their acknowledgement of this thread.

14101: 14087: 13094: 13078: 11913: 11258:. Similarly, while I recall making changes to the lede, I have no recollection of undoing said edits. Either I have an undiagnosed case of 10714:

describes the process, including instructions for how and why to create a request for comment (RfC), to participate in one, and to end one.

10455: 10438: 10149: 9999: 9655: 8849: 8677: 5848:

Adding to the ANI report (apologies for the initial brevity) that this user has previously been warned about their page move vandalism by @

5571: 5399: 5385: 5110: 3926: 3902: 3876: 3307: 2992: 2938: 2913: 2271: 15111: 14886: 14845: 13025: 10650:. I will not hold your hand. You are on your own and you are completely responsible for your own edits. So, conduct yourself accordingly. 10414: 8604: 8340: 8322: 4178:: He keeps bothering me and keeps replying to only three edits, what do you want me to do? he's annoying, and I text the way he deserves. 15227: 15157: 15126: 14178: 13864: 12982:

Do you guys and gals need an SPI chucked together on this? It feels like folks are finding bits and pieces, and a CU could find the lot.

12977: 12510: 12388: 12357: 10611: 10590: 10572: 10555: 10266: 10252: 10119: 9671: 9041: 8868: 8835: 8821: 8683: 8131: 7598: 7554: 7502: 5656: 5506: 5470: 5454: 5295: 5136: 4865: 4680:

Two other users in this thread called Zemen out for their behaviour (one even asking them to strike their attacks and cease them). Admin

3254: 2783: 2765: 1678:

amongst other Afds, driving editors away and stopping it coming to consensus. This is one of three articles with similar names including

1314: 444: 217: 59: 12477: 11807: 8106:

I created different accounts because edited the page from different places so I did not have with me the password of previous accounts

4668:

What attack? this is the idea of the persian Iranians, which some Kurds also have, sir. and ofc something you don't like isn't reliable.

3850: 3172: 3112: 15052: 13922: 12644: 12603: 11832: 11612:

other editors to pile on me in this thread in what seems as a barely disguised attempt to muzzle any further participation on my part.

10190: 7288: 4949:. That should cover the low-hanging fruit. Another admin may want to review this in more depth and see if anything else is in order. 4497: 4147: 3038: 2042: 1638: 1188: 454: 373: 222: 14863: 13976: 13957:

from article quality assessment as well as related contests. A focus on other endeavors, like expanding stubs, is highly recommended.

13661: 11656:

Nobody is turning a blind eye to Remsense's part. Remsense's part has already been addressed and solved. They have said things like

10523:. To restrict myself otherwise feels like censorship designed to discourage changes to the status quo which I feel certain users like 10077: 8882: 2057: 796: 14519: 14251: 13227:

Please gain some more experience with Knowledge and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN

13138: 12459: 8671: 8579:

I am the blocking administrator. Cryptic revoked talk page access while I was visiting with my granddaughter and picking up a pizza.

7300: 6656:

by asilvering. To no surprise, they are also attacking me (and Wikaviani) in the thread, even commenting in OUR summary of disputes.

5485: 3261:

And I closed it again. The consensus here seems to be that it was a good close, and it certainly is not appropriate to reopen it and

2968: 1858: 419: 15175: 13596:? Peer reviews are not quite assessment and offer an opportunity to develop the skills needed for the areas that have been an issue 12527: 11849: 10967: 3826:

In addition to the opinions already expressed, the RFC's question was clearly both out of scope for the article, and a violation of

17: 15086:

with the summary : "Think twice or thrice before adding/deleting or go only make wiki pages about Pakistan as you’re a gay Paki." (

14751: 14340: 13962: 10429:

is an utterly inappropriate thing to say to a fellow editor? If so, will you commit to never saying anything like that ever again?

9266:

There ended up being a total of 4 user blocks that I ended up lifting. Two were probably okay but not needed anymore; the block of

9033: 8992: 7437:

The promo has been occurring at a highly accelerated rate this past month. Administrator attention to this situation is requested.

5966:

Looks like its national insult me and Persians day today. Such behaviour has no place on this site (or elsewhere for that matter).

2655: 1849: 202: 6025:

You are hampering the spread of knowledge using the clunky wikipedia interface as your weapon. Your account needs to be suspended.

2623:

OP should forward whatever evidence they have that this happened in the tiny everyone-knows-everyone else United Kingdom, to both

2521:, making the above thread nonsensical in spots. I cannot undo the edit and do not currently have time to manually restore them. — 14385: 13701: 13331:

that you immediately disengage from content quality–related processes on Knowledge and focus your efforts elsewhere for some time

11430:

has received no reprimand whatsoever for his conduct on the page while I have a big, ugly edit-war tag on my talk page posted by

10235: 6794: 545: 315: 14791: 13417: 13312: 11116:

is based on fairly flimsy evidence and does not involve any abuse of the Rfc process which is the primary focus of this thread.

7640:

Just state your wrongdoing clearly. You might as well because this is the least convincing attempt at deception that I've seen.

2536: 2028: 1758:

Also I can't help it if there are no the merge proposal lead nowhere due to lack of participation. I can't be blamed for that.

14687: 13552:

six month topic ban on article quality assessment, broadly construed. Use that time to substantively improve articles instead.

10634:, I am under no obligation to instruct you on the precise circumstances when you can or cannot open an RFC. It is incumbent on 10486:) feel I have been abusing the Rfc process and when you believe it is (or is not) appropriate to open one in the first place. 10296: 10063: 9023: 8929:, Knowledge doesn't require accounts. The IP has been given a final warning; if disruptive edits continue, just report them to 8523: 6325:" What are you talking about ? Any of your comments contains attacks towards other editors, which only proves my above comment. 5935: 5719: 2059: 1716:

Most importantly, my inputs may have also made it clear to users unfamiliar with the subject that they are different companies.

1372: 822: 538: 310: 232: 104: 11223:

very unlikely to get stopped by the police for it? This is similar, in some respects – but there is no "right to re-revert".

4691:

with no diffs to back it up. And before that, they asked ME to not "further provoke" an editor who is already clearly "upset"

1403:

This editor has brought MoS problems to an awful lot of film/television-related articles and never explained their edits (see

14320: 13869:

as an aside, i don't feel comfortable weighing in on a restriction on contest participation as a current coordinator of one (

13713: 13488: 13321:

You've had some experienced editors telling you you need to slow down, but you seem to be ignoring them. Can you tell me why?

13263: 12991: 12005: 11889: 10963: 10725: 10143: 9378:

Flight709 as "completely untrustworthy and are not welcome here". How is this not plain and simple abuse of admin power? The

5694: 5540: 5240: 2665: 471: 212: 151: 10921:

in particular for where they acknowledge that this rationale is their personal views, not what reliable sources might say).

5418:

I don't like editing other editors' user pages, but it seems worth a shot in this instance. I've left them a message there.

5044:

I remain convinced that it's always best to be collegial to editors you're in a content dispute with, even if they're dicks.

14577: 13944: 12465: 12382: 12365: 12085: 12057: 9375: 9283:

acknowledges some of them were excessive, but comes across as deeply suspicious of new/anonymous editors with an immediate

9256: 8173: 8052: 5616: 5130: 5063:

We are all volunteers here, not professionals or robots. The insistence on politeness over everything else just encourages

4730: 2055: 550: 290: 207: 14922:

Upon closer inspection, his source was authored by "Ritesh Sahu" and had been shoehorned onto the page three other times.

12773:

I have blocked CrazyLoverFutbolLoko for one week for disruptive editing including factionalism and battleground behavior.

8260:

I think it's the fan excitement flavor of COI. I doubt they're literally paid to do this, but I think either tag is fine @

6573: 5283: 5279: 14635: 14269: 13940: 12966:

who had a very different writing style but was making a similar argument about a FIFA World Cup and was blocked in July.

12597: 11954: 11855: 10184: 6842: 6031: 6024: 5991: 5970: 3008: 1632: 1586: 1319: 410: 335: 190: 121: 14938: 14934:

On 28 September, Ritesh8040 returns not just to citing his website, but citing his exact same article for Maggie Smith

13326: 12320: 12292: 12264: 12180: 12124: 11438:

opinion on how the page should look just so happens to coincide with the views strongly articulated on the talk page by

10377: 10104:

has stated on multiple occasions how ashamed he is of being born in the United Kingdom and his dislike of British people

5338:

This isn't looking promising. After their draft article on their user page was deleted, they've just started a new one (

5248: 15240: 14513: 14245: 14226: 13132: 12902: 12668: 12577:

So I am impartial to this entire thing, but I'll take it here since I stumbled across it and it isn't looking good. On

12236: 12208: 12152: 10832:

you engaged once they started, and admins and the community won't care to make that effort in general if you give them

9193:

Each sentence containing the word "rape" or "murder" has a cite after it; one is even as part of a cited direct quote.

8142:

In the meantime, I would suggest mass draftification of all articles created by these editors (that are not undergoing

7626:. Also, why would you need to use a different account when in a different house anyway? And how could you consistently 7396: 7312: 7011: 7002: 6993: 6984: 6963: 6916: 6883: 4455:. I don't have to lie to you, I've used the 'porsian' phrase before, and the system suggests that I've used it before. 3962: 3156: 523: 518: 503: 340: 330: 295: 166: 13477: 11608:

not only (1) characterizing me as a "problem editor" in the discussion which I started at your recommendation but (2)

11369:

Why are you holding me responsible for the behavior of another editor? You should be taking that up with them, not me.

11204:

WP:EW and WP:BB are in tension. What looks like "bold editing" to one person can look like "edit warring" to another.

10919: 15235: 14745: 14403: 14109: 11604:

If I just received an edit-war tag on my talk page, I would not feel the need to complain. What I take issue with is

8986: 6473:? I couldnt care less if they were Arab or Kryptonian. You are unable to make a single comment without attacking me. 5247:

There was recently another editor also using the iOS app who didn't discover their talk page until they were blocked,

3907:

I started writing a discussion point asking whether the frequency with which this issue arises (and is shot down) on

3791: 1896:". Since this report was filed, they have been mass welcoming new users despite some of those users having zero edits 528: 461: 357: 350: 300: 13743:, this is a reasonable idea, and I see Rollinginhisgrave has taken the initiative to take over some of the reviews. 12674: 8696: 3005: 2437:

per nomination, clearly a net negative in this topic area. They are only creating more work for others to clean up.

2409: 2407: 2160:

The decision was taken at a state cabinet meeting, an official said, adding the proposal will be sent to the Centre.

1906: 15087: 13777: 13720:

I do see that most people are in agreement about a topic ban but I would also like to suggest that upon returning @

13456: 12656: 11939: 11935: 11860: 10155: 7383:

Regarding User:Gingeksace - of the 68 articles they created, all except 5 are about the Italian poet/entrepreneur

6788: 6371: 5826: 5515: 5512: 4089:

Not only what you said makes no sense, has zero diffs, and barely addresses my report. Now you're doubling down at

2923: 2223:

I thought MOS for Civil Aviation is the approving authority so my bad. The approving authority is central cabinet.

1879: 1877: 788: 675: 161: 126: 14299:? They've been vandalizing various pages for the past 4 hours but for some reason no one has checked AIV. Thanks. 12662: 10391: 10385: 6375: 3160: 2061:. I don't think that short window of time is enough for you to decide whether an article should be merged or not. 15286: 15058: 14919:

when I reverted his edit because it introduced redundant information and his source said it was "powered by AI".

12998:

I'm about 95% confident that SinisterUnion and CrazyLoverFutbolLoko will come up as a match. Okay, maybe 98%. --

10290: 10102:. When asked to provide a reliable source for that claim, he did not do so. In the article, he wrote that Oliver 9921: 9598:(bolding mine). Honestly, that is mind-boggling how someone would come to that conclusion. Support another admin 9277: 9137: 8738: 8708: 8702: 7509: 5929: 4861: 3993:

This is just their attacks, I could cite their disruptive edits too. Their talk page history is full of warnings

3420:

As is clearly stated at the top of the page, the filer should expect scrutiny applied to their behavior as well.

3003: 2424: 1860: 1366: 1324: 562: 513: 466: 325: 247: 136: 52: 14723: 13523:

Go ahead. No one's obligating you to keep any templates on your user page that you don't want to keep there. --

12680: 10383: 10381: 10374: 10371: 5189:

Do you know if they can read page histories? I could make a dummy edit with a link to their UTP in the summary.

4603:

I'm sure u, like all other porsians, will resort to the saying that the word 'Kurd' is a word used for shepherd.

4001:

I'm sure u, like all other porsians, will resort to the saying that the word 'Kurd' is a word used for shepherd.

3665: 14717: 14346: 13764: 12638: 12029: 10709: 10196: 10167: 10020:

article, they implied the Irish version was Anglophobic without a reference, further implying the same for the

9362: 9281: 9234: 9085:

Turns out- the vast majority of that content was copyvio. I've removed it and marked it for revdel. Sincerely,

8748: 8714: 7703: 6559: 6400: 6382: 6300: 5792: 4820: 633: 449: 393: 345: 264: 227: 15181: 14711: 12412: 11966: 11962: 11091: 10425:, I have a question for you and would appreciate a direct and concise answer: Do you understand that writing 10388: 10036: 10032: 10028: 9755:

a large proportion of bad faith editors who are freuently abusive and/or lie. It's much easier for someone to

5160: 15223: 15107: 14699: 14571: 14125: 14057: 13917: 13841:

of course i am not happy to see it come to this board, but i have to corroborate the issues raised here. i'd

13451:

suggested copyediting, or maybe you could "adopt" some other backlog. How about de-stubbing? I see you're in

13042: 13021:

I was the admin who blocked Fa30sp and I would lay a small bet that both the editors named above are linked.

12627: 12034:

There is probably one and the same person who under various IP accounts pushing various subcategories of the

11138:

occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions."

10208: 10161: 9933: 9651: 9053: 8205: 7449: 6037:

Account created on February 2021, 133 edits, majority of which have been reverted. Fail to see how they're a

5286:. I left them a message about copying another bit from within Knowledge but those two had some other origin. 2369: 1713:

I never said a single point again and again. My discussion lead to clearing misunderstanding that took place.

1662: 664: 269: 257: 252: 23: 14549: 14293: 13168: 12400: 10274: 9658:) and agreed not to repeat it (sadly, no one looked at that unblock request within a reasonable timeframe). 8497:

Most of this material is sourced to Lerro himself or to his "members/adherents" - to it's all COI sourcing:

5148: 4741: 4654: 4647: 4640: 4623: 4620: 4052: 4045: 4038: 4021: 4018: 1874:

Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have separate article, All plants are owned by one company

14985: 14947:

Since returning to Knowledge in February 2024, Ritesh8040's only actions have been to cite his own website

14781: 14705: 14629: 14047: 13987: 13730: 12885: 12615: 12406: 9951: 9939: 9037: 9016: 8487: 8404: 7635:

We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author

7513:

We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author

7405:

and there were a few sockpuppet investigations on it-wp. Gingeksace has removed COI templates in the past.

7282: 6913:(which was redirected to Menotto Lerro’s article) (Note: this has now been blank-and-redirected to Empathy) 6836: 5154: 3089: 2761: 2635: 1897: 1650: 1567: 1535: 1506: 645: 533: 403: 195: 14948: 14943: 14910: 14537: 14257: 13156: 11251: 9301:

I'm not offering to do it, but what exactly is it that you are asking the community to do? Talk to him? –

7434:, who is a member of Lerro’s Empathism, other members/adherents of Empathism or other affiliated sources. 6818: 6064:

This is what was said, the note they left in place of primary sources that actually had numerical figures:

5680:

NebY has pretty much said all else that there is to say. Blocks are meant to prevent, and a site one will

5524: 5521: 5518: 5476:'s message about an hour ago but carried on editing their user page. They haven't edited their talk page. 4674: 4667: 4602: 4099: 4097: 4094: 4000: 3477:

It would be a practice point for me to remember to state explicitly that the RfC was malformed next time.

14935: 14927: 14925: 14923: 14920: 14769: 12621: 11946: 11049: 10320: 10202: 9927: 9074: 9004: 8482:

ping me with particular tasks. I can make a source assessment table or remove cruft from artist pages. --

7402:

Interestingly, Lerro’s article on Italian Knowledge was deleted for lack of encyclopedic value/notability

6492: 6304: 5959: 4957:

Let me know if the attacks on your ethnicity or motivations continue, and I'll block indef. I know that

4931: 4816: 4758: 3956: 2052: 1901: 1868: 1656: 1396: 746: 398: 78: 9906: 8456:, there is not a defined action plan to my knowledge. Some of the editors have opened AfDs (for example 6806: 5777:

I've reversed it, but you should probably try to explain to them why their article is being deleted. --

3755:, but that looks like a good close. You'll have to accept that you're outside consensus on this one. -- 1421:). They continued disrupting Knowledge even though they had been warned about these multiple times (see 14951: 14681: 14607: 14543: 14287: 14134:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits

13781: 13382: 13162: 12834: 12585:, there appears to be a group of editors trying to band together under some "faction" (these users are 12394: 12018: 11053: 10394: 10308: 9945: 9720: 9667: 9606: 9439: 9049: 8762: 8734: 8537: 8440: 8399:

on the promotional items listed or do they need to be nominated one-by-one? Thanks for any guidance. --

8269: 8214: 7913:

Okay, maybe we'll get a straighter answer if you log out and then log back in with the Nihaon account?

5947: 5736: 5142: 4847: 4789: 3855:

I was watching this as it happened, and it's my understanding the RFC was closed within two hours. In @

3243:

I'd say someone's irony detector needs to be taken in for recalibration, but ChatGPT doesn't do irony.

2960:

Yes. Whether or not off-wiki events have occurred as described, GDX420's description of their stance –

1934: 1384: 742: 320: 146: 131: 116: 86: 45: 14665: 12506: 12455: 12430: 11687:

continue down that path you may be blocked. Notably, although Nick-D may be an admin, since they were

6866: 6404: 6394: 6388: 6128: 2823:

and needs to get trimmed significantly. It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead either.

1899: 14957:

who created four articles for "Ritesh Sahu" is his favourite author Ritesh Sahu from the website Live

14775: 14595: 14525: 14132:" I've reverted all of their relevent edits. We spent a lot of time last December dealing with this ( 13708: 13483: 13144: 12986: 12944: 12633: 12609: 12000: 11883: 11767:

Emiya1980, I don't think that anyone is expecting to issue sanctions specifically for the WWII edits.

10720: 10519:

not been reached in favor of either position, I do not see the problem in opening an Rfc as I did on

10137: 9701: 9534: 9102: 9010: 8902: 7941: 7261:– member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who also participated in a presentation about Lerro’s manifesto 6748: 6709: 6596: 5897: 5689: 5665: 5535: 5275: 5235: 5224: 4916: 4613: 4299:

and namecalling due to ones alleged ethnicity (my ethnicity is not disclosed on my userpage, in fact

4011: 3986: 2950: 2677: 2503:

Editor clearly does not want to listen & just wants to get their way, regardless of the facts. —

2096:

That is pure disinformation. No name change has occurred so far. Which source are you talking about?

1726:

may note "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for

1644: 1490: 1468: 305: 156: 14653: 13495:

I love reviewing AFC articles, and I also like destubbing articles, though I didn't do much lately.

11495:, not you. With that being said, I'm not going to be only one taking the fall for an edit war which 7881:

Okay, so evidently there is no plausible good faith explanation for your activity. Good day to you.

6854: 1862: 1838:

of personally attacking them when there was nothing in their reply that could be considered as such

15010: 14942:

I give a second warning later on 28 September, and Ritesh8040 cites himself again on 29 September.

14940: 14757: 14531: 14028: 13150: 13038: 12578: 12376: 12079: 12051: 11815: 11254:, another editor confronted me over my reversion to his edits in the "Locarno Treaties" section of 10984:

I did only two reverts. That's pretty common in terms of what I've seen of other editors' conduct.

10231:(see filter log). Any admin willing to take action on these accounts would be greatly appreciated. 9712:

The only possible "action" here is to take this to ArbCom, no? Seems they'd be likely to accept an

9250: 8568: 8419: 8379: 8155: 8059: 8013: 7303:– an autobiographical novel by Lerro with the “critical reception” section of the article cited to 6812: 6106:. Yet I am clearly the "hyper emotional" one here, everyone can see your treatment towards me here 5853: 5610: 5168:

Could an admin apply a gentle mainspace block to get their attention so they read their talk page?

5124: 5012:

what I see here is an experienced user deciding to bully a less-experienced user with an ANI report

4255:

and namecalling several times. As you can see, they're still doubling down, showing signs of being

3974: 3912:

Then the discussion got closed, and things turned into a revert war over the close.To your point, @

3655: 3566: 3411: 3393: 3325: 3209: 3168: 1459: 1417: 1411: 1405: 639: 491: 9371: 15252: 14912:

That should be water under the bridge now, but the user's editing is still about self-promotion.

14763: 14374: 14043: 13983: 13936: 13758: 13740: 13726: 13337: 12591: 12582: 11979: 11741: 10314: 10216: 10178: 9968:

OK, all good alternatives to blocking. Short-term semi-protection has seemed to work so far at a

9625: 9621: 9590:

really ought to have known better than to interpret them tagging him in their unblock request as

9343: 9028: 8998: 8621: 8483: 8453: 8400: 8104:

trivial, what is the problem, why are you concentrating on this irrelevant stuff. Also, notably,

7633:

Presenting your abuses as hypotheticals, such as your sockpuppetry and the comment earlier about

7246: 7135:– adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, writer of the “official anthem” of the Empathic Movement 6661: 6482: 6239: 6211: 6166: 6114: 6046: 5953: 5759: 5463: 4769: 4748: 4719: 4519: 4478: 4438: 4413: 4376: 4354: 4308: 4268: 4110: 4058: 3085: 3012: 2632: 2570: 2548: 2474: 2334: 2302: 2281: 2228: 2194: 2149: 2133: 2087: 1983: 1903: 1865: 1856: 1854: 1852: 1800: 1763: 1749: 1626: 1580: 1531: 1502: 1478: 1390: 12787:

Not mentioned here, after the above edit, block extended to 1 month, and TPA revoked by Cullen.

12091: 12063: 11943: 11530:

on talk first, and then only placing a banner if no consensus or improvements result from that.

10398: 4823:. He has no problem using offensive language when it is directed at groups other than his own. 2584:

it clearly would have show not to go ahead, but it could also have inexperience but it could be

2026: 15244: 14973: 14909:

had an article about himself ("Ritesh Sahu") speedily deleted three times in one week in 2011.

14507: 14440: 14411: 14393: 14239: 14011: 13770: 13690: 13634: 13514: 13500: 13435: 13402: 13365: 13222: 13126: 12898: 12706: 11926: 11776: 11669: 11389: 11360: 11318: 11228: 11162: 11131: 10863:

SnowRise while they could have been clearer, in fact Nemov/the OP did say in their first post "

9829: 9793: 9779: 9765: 9739: 9404: 9184: 9090: 8091: 8042: 8028: 6926: 6800: 6292: 5194: 4927: 4782: 4503: 4205: 3673: 3468: 3370: 3066: 3048: 3027:

Positive content written in an unencyclopaedic tone and sourced to the organisation's website?

2853: 2683: 2566: 2466: 2045: 1785: 1337: 705: 508: 68: 14475:

I have blocked Hexerade for a week and we can see how the sockpuppet investigation plays out.

14263: 13203:

I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on

11708:

block is something many editors will also have at the back of their mind. I don't hang out at

7538:

The exact degree of association between the editor and Lerro seems unclear, but that they are

7453: 2009:" but this does not address why you welcomed users that have made zero edits to this site. As 15117:

The /64 range has an extensive block log. I've blocked them for 6 months (last time was 3).--

14809:

Let me add my two cents; that this influx is a clear attempt to disrupt Knowledge procedure.

14739: 14601: 13593: 13452: 13372: 13071: 12829: 12761: 12688: 12013: 10778: 10302: 10059: 9891: 9434: 9238: 8980: 8789: 8757: 8532: 8435: 8264: 8209: 7195:– member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize 7177:– member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize 7165:– member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize 6954: 6922: 6910: 6701: 6568: 6470: 6443: 6253: 6195: 6103: 5941: 5731: 4967: 4795: 4632:

When I tried to explain to them why it was not nice to resort to namecalling ("farsist") and

4586:

Request for secondary admin opinion; since when is attacking others for their ethnicity okay?

4030:

When I tried to explain to them why it was not nice to resort to namecalling ("farsist") and

3798: 3058: 2839: 2446: 2212: 2178: 2105: 2070: 1918: 1453: 1447: 1441: 1435: 1429: 1423: 1378: 14370: 12502: 12451: 12426: 11716:

By comparison Remsense is active on warning editors for edit-warring, and reporting them to

7400: 5829:, I imagine. Anyway, blocked indefinitely for disruptive page moves and personal attacks.-- 4946: 4926:

perceived nationality or ethnicity as an adhominem (which is what they appear to be doing).

3994: 2044:. And even if the name change occurred, it would still be disruptive to move that page, see 14976:

with ignoring two warnings about the consequences of doing this, and we have a user who is

14882: 14814: 14799: 14659: 14583: 14426: 14360: 14137: 13705: 13572: 13528: 13480: 13464: 13448: 13236: 13022: 13003: 12983: 12852: 12795: 12736: 11997: 11868: 10833: 10717: 9774:

That's not an excuse nor does it explain the initial block of an editor like StattoSteven.

9686: 9519: 9347: 9317: 9148: 9117: 9062: 8831: 8797: 8509: 8469: 8336: 8250: 8229: 8183: 7937: 7904: 7872: 7836: 7802: 7772: 7739: 7725: 7675: 7660: 7609: 7564: 7442: 7102: 6919:– founded by Lerro to give “prize awards” to adherents/members of Lerro’s Empathic Movement 6860: 6782: 6744: 6705: 6635: 6591: 6433: 6361: 6158: 6013: 5893: 5882: 5859: 5816: 5801: 5782: 5767: 5686: 5567: 5532: 5395: 5367: 5305: 5232: 5094: 5001: 4912: 4685: 4633: 4591: 4507: 4405: 4404:

Okay, that's it. I would a more experienced admin to look into this. I won't tolerate more

4395: 4342: 4332: 4296: 4286: 4252: 4242: 4160: 4031: 3827: 3760: 3578: 3460: 3284: 3117: 2989: 2945: 2878: 2824: 2710: 2125: 1486: 1464: 1339: 10764: 9156:

They're welcome to withdraw the threat at any time and perhaps have the block lifted, but

8826:

OK, no problem then. I was suspicious of .co domains, since those have been used to spam.

2777:. I deliberately performed a clean start for this reason, 'ca' is basically unsearchable. 1741:

which doesn't appear to be a comment to be made on a collaborative project like Knowledge.

1676:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

8: 15083: 14641: 14589: 14480: 14213: 14153: 14024: 13886: 13858: 13620: 13557: 12952: 12816: 12778: 12714: 12447: 12442: 12333: 11751: 11647: 11617: 11504: 11447: 11426:; which you yourself admit I bore a smaller part of the blame for. From what I can tell, 11374: 11345: 11304: 11262:

or somebody is piggy-backing on my account to make additional edits without my knowledge.

11255: 11195: 11121: 11075: 11032: 10989: 10953: 10900: 10872: 10855: 10814: 10759: 10697: 10678: 10655: 10607: 10586: 10568: 10532: 10509: 10491: 10473: 10451: 10434: 10364: 10284: 10262: 10115: 9915: 9713: 9374:. They blocked Flight709 for editing "far too quickly, recklessly, and suspiciously" and 9325:

I was hoping that there would be some introspection so it wouldn't be necessary to go to

9271: 8723: 8584: 8563: 8415: 8375: 8151: 8055: 8009: 7545:

It seems to me that this is a straightforward promo only account (and ditto for Nihaon).

7120: 6946: 6676: 6619: 6581: 6554: 6500: 6452: 6411: 6312: 6266: 6225: 6181: 6148: 6080: 5923: 5709: 4828: 4071: 3980: 3733: 3366: 2867: 2806: 2054:, especially when you have proposed multiple of them to be merged within a single minute 2010: 1960: 1727: 1553: 1521: 1360: 709: 481: 388: 82: 14792:

There's five brand new accounts swarming the discussion in a span of less than two hours

8501:

So if you see any sources written by any of the names listed at the bottom of this page:

7933: 601: 15248: 14969: 14899: 14647: 14083: 13932: 13316: 12702: 12586: 12491: 11894: 11688: 11584: 11542: 11473: 11010: 10970:

to the talk page were to advertise some of the RfCs noted at the start of this thread.

10742: 9987: 9862: 9847: 9633: 9553: 9452: 9421: 9331: 9289: 9228: 8958: 8941: 8915: 8617: 7252: 7222: 7204: 7189:– adherent of Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize 7132: 7078: 7022: 6848: 6731: 6657: 6642: 6534: 6478: 6277: 6235: 6207: 6162: 6110: 6042: 5627: 5499: 5426: 5350: 5326: 5258: 5211: 5176: 5086: 5073: 5052:

is a cornerstone of the wiki, demanding editors remain perfectly calm and professional

4979: 4952: 4812: 4765: 4744: 4715: 4675:

haven't said anything about you, you confirmed this theory yourself with your comments.

4515: 4474: 4448: 4434: 4409: 4372: 4350: 4349:, which you and I both know is not okay. Especially not due to ones alleged ethnicity. 4304: 4264: 4234: 4106: 4054: 3894: 3842: 3713: 3695: 3637: 3608: 3586: 3489: 3432: 3347: 3299: 3230: 3191: 2523: 2505: 2470: 2381: 2355: 2330: 2317: 2298: 2277: 2257: 2224: 2190: 2145: 2129: 2083: 1994: 1979: 1796: 1773: 1759: 1745: 1671: 1621: 1576: 594: 586: 486: 242: 14275: 13397:

Sure, I can accept a topic ban, this is scary on my part, but I probably deserved it.

10939:

That is a complete misrepresentation of my conduct on the page. I did not go over the

10334: 10325:

has created 8 RFCs since May 27th. All of these RFCs have been on stable biographies.

7695:

and the question can be resolved one way or the other. I'd do it myself if I knew how.

7462: 5228: 15219: 15103: 14977: 14565: 14436: 14407: 14389: 14119: 14008: 13913: 13785: 13721: 13687: 13631: 13511: 13497: 13432: 13412: 13399: 12889: 12541: 12473: 12035: 11950: 11772: 11737: 11665: 11662:"As someone whose biggest point of self-critique is easily that they revert too much" 11496: 11385: 11356: 11314: 11241: 11224: 11173: 11158: 10948:

complaint is completely unrelated to Rfcs which is the primary focus of this thread.

10468:

are more appropriate? Do you understand the concerns that other editors have raised?

10397:, and it’s another completely pointless RFC that wasn’t necessary after the original 9825: 9804: 9789: 9775: 9761: 9735: 9650:

as the reasoning for the block wasn't particularly strong to begin with and the user

9400: 9180: 9086: 9070: 8878: 8087: 8038: 8024: 6959: 6693: 6538: 6474: 6038: 5409: 5190: 4883:

While I quibble over a couple of HoI's points, I think there's enough for at least a

4761: 4734: 4711: 4256: 4201: 4156: 4102: 4070:

and arbitrarily tag just because three of my edits don't 'look neutral', which is an

3968: 3787: 3669: 3464: 3062: 3044: 2849: 2365: 1884: 1781: 10349: 10039:

edits show they not only know how to use citations but also know the correct format.

7375: 5060:

by bringing those attacks to ANI is what I found to be dismissive of their concerns.

4705:....Plus I didn't call you childish, but your thoughts and accusations are childish. 2394:

and reviewing Thewikizoomer's behaviour in this thread, especially comments such as

14859: 14623: 14191: 14097: 14068: 13972: 13603: 13066: 12756: 12683: 12556: 12516:

can be challenging with IP editors due to few of them participating on talk pages.

11903: 11632: 11299:

If anybody else viewing this thread has any ideas what's going on, please chip in.

10975: 10926: 10791: 10774: 10359: 10344: 10095: 10048: 9887: 9565: 9198: 9165: 9130:. I'm concerned that no warning was given prior to filing this ANI action, though. 8358: 8297: 8127: 8113: 8073: 7997: 7918: 7886: 7855: 7821: 7787: 7757: 7710: 7645: 7594: 7579: 7550: 7498: 7468: 7308: 7270: 7228: 7138: 7066: 7047: 7007: 6830: 6646: 6405:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247695404

6395:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247670270

6389:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1241923794

6199: 6129:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247670270

5034: 4963: 4629:"Farsist" means "Persianist", whatever that is supposed to mean. More namecalling. 4027:"Farsist" means "Persianist", whatever that is supposed to mean. More namecalling. 3922: 3872: 3860: 3794: 3378: 3280: 3270: 3033: 2970:

don't indicate someone who can edit the article collaboratively and in accord with

2835: 2734: 2693: 2628: 2624: 2591: 2540: 2439: 2205: 2171: 2098: 2063: 1911: 1824: 1723: 1694: 1599: 1590: 11212: 11210: 11208: 10024:

yet using a joke interview from the aforementioned article subject as a reference.

6909:– a so-called “cultural movement” founded by Lerro who also wrote its “manifesto” 4729:

As this report is ongoing, Zemen is still causing disruption. They just replaced "

4101:. Would appreciate if an admin would look at this, fail to see how this user is a 3043:

How is this content that was removed unencyclopaedic and inappropriately sourced?

1867:. Their mass merging proposals of NTPC building articles are problematic as well. 15267: 15122: 15000: 14906: 14895: 14878: 14810: 14795: 14464: 14422: 14356: 14225: 13568: 13524: 13460: 13430:

Okay, I will not edit for a few days, but I will still watch from the sidelines.

13288: 13030: 12999: 12846: 12789: 12730: 12418: 11864: 11717: 11709: 11340:

reversion here by myself; classifying this as edit-warring is frankly overkill.

11112:

However, the fact remains that Nick-D's claim that I started an edit war over at

10410: 10257:

I semi-protected the article for two weeks to deter additional socking attempts.

9391: 9383: 8827: 8793: 8599: 8505: 8479: 8465: 8332: 8261: 8246: 8225: 8179: 8083: 7900: 7868: 7832: 7798: 7768: 7735: 7721: 7671: 7656: 7605: 7560: 7438: 7317: 7276: 7198: 7186: 7162: 7016: 6777: 6462: 6429: 6357: 6203: 5855: 5812: 5797: 5778: 5763: 5563: 5391: 5363: 5315: 5301: 5090: 5049: 4997: 4738: 4681: 4563: 4555: 4533: 4493: 4460: 4391: 4365: 4328: 4282: 4238: 4220: 4183: 4175: 4143: 4125: 4080: 3950: 3867:

that their use of sources violated medical referencing and fringe content rules.

3756: 3742: 3249: 3146: 2998: 2820: 2747: 2706: 2491: 2276:

I made my points. So yes, I'll stop any further comments/edits on the said AFDs.

2025:". Starting welcoming new users right after proposing merger of over 30 articles 1872:

Especially when the rationale for it is seemingly lacking in any actual policy. "

14929:. I warned the user about using sources he wrote himself, late on 27 September. 13509:

I really want to revert the wikibreak template and review and de-stub articles.

11327:

Apparently, I misread the link. That being said, the problem over at Hindenburg

8122:

And the purpose of the multiple accounts was... to cast multiple votes at AfDs.

7479:

Just a brief note to say that I entirely agree with Netherzone's analysis above.

6176:

the logic the user is employing here, in guise of factuality, that is the case.

6141: 6107: 5528: 4839: 4159:. It's neither a blog, nor a Discord chat, nor a jocular texting conversation. 14965: 14824: 14476: 14209: 14183: 14149: 13876: 13870: 13848: 13652: 13616: 13583: 13553: 13418:

You have already implied before that activities like reviews make you exhausted

13267: 13257: 13195: 12948: 12812: 12774: 12752: 12723: 12710: 12483: 12468:

for the third time, after being given a warning for edit warring it yesterday.

12440:

I was told at AIV this is not obvious vandalism. Except how are revisions like

12343: 12330: 11828: 11793: 11747: 11701: 11681: 11643: 11613: 11500: 11443: 11370: 11341: 11300: 11191: 11187: 11117: 11083: 11058: 11045: 11028: 10985: 10949: 10883: 10868: 10838: 10797: 10693: 10689: 10674: 10665: 10651: 10631: 10603: 10582: 10577: 10564: 10560: 10528: 10505: 10501: 10487: 10469: 10461: 10447: 10443: 10430: 10422: 10339: 10279: 10258: 10232: 10111: 10021: 9910: 9663: 9326: 9284: 9212: 9157: 9131: 8845: 8807:

I am a bit confused. How is this spam? google.com.co is a Google owned domain.

8719: 8611: 8580: 8368: 7623: 7427: 7348: 7304: 7192: 7168: 7096: 7090: 7084: 7028: 6940: 6095: 5705: 5652: 5644: 5553: 5481: 5450: 5381: 5291: 4958: 4318:

much good at communicating with each other while you're both upset, and as the

2979: 2971: 2934: 2863: 2802: 1948: 1889:

who voted oppose on the original Afd, in their reply to Thewikizoomer they said

1731: 1549: 1545: 1517: 1482: 1355: 691: 13241:

I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet

12012:

Article SEMIed, IP blocked for 31h, named user warned for logged out editing.

9367: 7752:

subject area and who refuses to declare his transparent conflict of interest.

2051:

How do you explain your blanket merge proposals of NTPC power station articles

1335: 15280: 14839: 14352: 14315: 14164: 14079: 13459:. You won't run out of those any time soon, and it will be good practice. -- 13183: 13179: 12487: 11961:'s edit were right and started personal attack towards me; here are the IP's 11729: 11725: 11597: 11574: 11532: 11488: 11463: 11435: 11427: 11150: 11087: 11000: 10940: 10915:

Talk:World War II#Who should be listed at the top of the main Allied leaders?

10828: 10769: 10733: 10643: 10354: 10127: 10083: 10017: 9983: 9756: 9629: 9587: 9549: 9469: 9417: 9224: 9127: 8954: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8911: 8396: 8147: 8143: 8082:

I think one could take a loaf of bread down to the nearest pond and get less

8005: 8001: 7699: 7692: 7423:

Since this campaign began, Lerro is now mentioned hundreds of times on en-wp

7413: 7384: 7054: 6998: 6950: 6897: 6875: 6724: 6466: 6249: 6191: 6091: 6017: 5878: 5620: 5492: 5473: 5419: 5343: 5319: 5251: 5204: 5169: 4904: 4892: 4660: 4595: 4511: 4346: 4303:

is not even a Persian city..) okay now? I hope you understand my frustation.

4260: 4197: 4090: 3913: 3884: 3856: 3832: 3807: 3709: 3685: 3627: 3598: 3582: 3503: 3479: 3422: 3337: 3289: 3220: 3181: 3152: 2926: 2797: 2585: 2415: 2166: 1999:

You haven't addressed any of the issues that have been pointed out by me and

1942: 10446:

Yes, I will commit to refraining from making such statements in the future.

9450:

community has agreed there's a problem it can't solve through normal means.

8108:). Basically, it was transparently the same user operating the same racket. 7311:

and “adherent” of the Empathic Movement who was then awarded one of Lerro’s

2910:

I have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry

2404: 2402: 2395: 2392: 2390: 2388: 1890: 1839: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1829: 1827: 1821: 654: 15207: 15091: 14972:

as he is citing the most profitable source, not the most accurate. Further

14916: 13903: 12469: 12422: 11457: 11423: 11333: 11247: 11113: 11024: 10639: 10520: 10465: 10329: 9882: 9465: 8874: 8862: 8815: 7864:

Be patient, I think I have already answerd at all possibilities and more...

7264: 7258: 6989: 6974: 6890:, 4 articles on Lerro’s works and at least one article on a family member. 6653: 6608:

Changes were made right after posting, they're additions for the most part.

6425: 6353: 6099: 6009: 5984: 5405: 4470: 4452: 2774: 2359: 2034: 1842: 14930: 13929:

six-month restriction from content assessment processes, broadly construed

13037:: Well would you look at that. Both blocked as confirmed socks of Fa30sp. 9511:

to determine whether they were appropriate. I also ask that the appeal by

7363:– adherent to Lerro’s Empathic Movement, an “Empathic Master” of Empathism 6934: 5996:... ...Ought I find some note about how worthless persian sources are, or 5443: 2348: 786: 14855: 14187: 14093: 14064: 13968: 13646: 13615:, I definitely believe that peer review is a form of article assessment. 13612: 13597: 13208: 13083:

And thus ends the rise and fall of "Encyclopedic Revolutionary Faction".

12963: 12552: 11899: 11724:

BTW about your two reverts point, note that some editors chose to follow

11628: 11605: 11492: 11439: 11431: 11154: 10971: 10945: 10922: 10091: 10044: 9395: 9194: 9161: 8354: 8293: 8165: 8123: 8109: 8069: 7994: 7928: 7914: 7882: 7851: 7817: 7783: 7753: 7706: 7641: 7590: 7575: 7546: 7494: 7464: 6980: 6825: 6137:

the user here appears to act as if the article is a fact finding mission.

5067:

and punishes good editors who are understandably upset at being targeted

5030: 3918: 3868: 3374: 3313: 3266: 3028: 2757: 2729: 2688: 1978:

To other mentions, I think I've already responded in respective replies.

1595: 12679:), who are personally attacking others and basically vandalising pages ( 11422:

Well, it seems I'm the only one who is being slammed for an edit war on

10966:

edited the World War II article before starting this edit war, and your

8395:

Question- I have lost the action item on this ANI. Will there be a mass

8176: 7403: 7307:

a member of the Empathic Movement and former professor of Lerro, and to

6886:, 55 articles on members and “adherents” to Lerro’s "Empathic Movement" 1864:, in spite of the fact it is not the official name yet, let a common one 85:. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see 15263: 15133: 15118: 14996: 14460: 14326: 11922: 11657: 10669: 10524: 10483: 10406: 9811: 9287:

reflex, so I think it needs to be brought to the community for review.

9066: 8971:

Obsessively editing same biographical page after a decade of inactivity

8594: 7141:– member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, and interviewer of Menotti Lerro 5830: 5064: 4559: 4529: 4489: 4456: 4230: 4216: 4193: 4179: 4139: 4121: 4076: 3945: 3738: 3625:

No one agrees with your premises. This is not a failing of the system.

3244: 2724:

Any number of ways, it's a small country where everyone knows everyone.

2487: 11491:

If you read my last post closely, my criticism was primarily aimed at

7458:. The "day of pickaxes" is fun tho, anyone with a good translation of 7412:

This seems to be a coordinated PR/PROMO effort by two SPAs to promote

6962:– a member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, who was also awarded Lerro’s 4093:(in the very section I opened by asking you not continue your attacks 638:

If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on

14000:

I also have a peer review in the Simple English Wiki, you can see it

11824: 9659: 9379: 8841: 8199: 7748:

I didn't mock you, the post you are referring to was by another user.

7417: 7388: 7010:- adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s 6992:- adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s 6983:– adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s 6906: 6901: 6887: 6879: 5648: 5549: 5477: 5446: 5377: 5318:. Hopefully they'll respond on their talk page and it can be lifted. 5287: 3151:

I am writing to formally report the disruptive behavior exhibited by

2975: 2930: 2329:

There is a difference between behavioural issue and content dispute.

81:. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the 12482:

The IP's edits are not vandalism. Please do not call them that, see

9574:

on the surface. We have yet another case of blocking someone off of

14828: 14331: 14301: 14169: 13958: 13831: 13744: 13657: 13421: 13341: 13283:

not wanting to listen to the constructive criticism you are getting

13198:, which discussed several problematic GAN reviews and nominations. 13113:

Well-meaning, but chronically disruptive, editing from TheNuggeteer

13085: 13034: 13016: 12968: 12913: 12870: 12518: 12348: 11840: 11798: 10597: 10546: 10243: 10068: 9474: 9242: 8910:

seems to do some vandalism. Maybe require accounts from that IP? --

8328: 8313: 7001:– member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s 5849: 4430:

And now up above Zemen is calling me childish (yet another attack)

3908: 3812: 3463:) and the outcome of the discussion was obvious to anyone but you. 3265:

the question being asked after editors have already replied to it.

3159:, they continues to undermine the purpose of the RFC by repeatedly 2262: 11186:

and therefore edit-warring, then what is the point of Knowledge's

8644:

Persistent unsourced date changes by 2601:14B:4101:400D:0:0:0:0/64

6381:

There's a mistake in editing, I linked to the article after their

5231:, so, depending on how ‘up to date’ that is, it’s anyone’s guess. 2912:

is not the whole story; GDX420 also deleted much positive content.

11130:

There may be some definitional issues here. From the top of the

8856: 8809: 8593:

I'm unclear what we're supposed to do with all that information.

2778: 2486:

Clearly not listening since they're bludgeoning this discussion.

14421:

now but will continue to observe their account's contributions.

13346:

You should hopefully know this by now, but you have to slow down

13293:

I think you should step away from Good Articles entirely for now

9907:

handy-dandy list of admins by number of blocks in the last month

9580:"because attitude is incompatible with writing an encyclopedia" 4614:

your opinions on my edits don't 'look natural' u are too farsist

4502:

It's absolutely mindboggling that you can get away with so much

4012:

your opinions on my edits don't 'look natural' u are too farsist

3650:

Its not about system; its about you. You are abusing the system

2565:. Not a good look that they display no self awareness in citing 2414:

This blatant misrepresentation has shown us that he has serious

14675: 11090:

in the infobox in a way that suggests he was the leader of the

10215:

Happymappy12342 has engaged in repeated unsourced additions to

6142:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah#Estimates

4696:

In fact, this only encouraged Zemen to continue their attacks:

4279:

These don't look like "common mistakes made by new users" to me

4277:

My apologies for the assumption; I misunderstood your comment,

4157:

Your talk page exists for other editors to communicate with you

3793:

to questions about other accounts does not inspire confidence.

2457:

Discussion about the recent move discussion is still ongoing -

2406:

This was after he received warnings for undiscussed page moves

1340: 37: 14968:

linking his own website into Knowledge articles, in breach of

14186:, I blocked that one as obvious, and CU-confirmed two others. 13355:

indefinite topic ban from good article nominations and reviews

11957:(possibly a sock of the same user) in their talkpage claiming 10668:

No, that is not good enough. When I have a biased editor like

10527:

are trying to impose on me. That is my opinion on the matter.

7391:

and its adherants/members of Lerro’s Empathism manifesto, his

6323:

this as another user who simply hates Arabs, and Arab sources.

6258: 5438:

They've continued working on their user page, adding an image

4779:...E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard... 3859:'s defense it followed closely on an earlier discussion with @ 3459:

Looks like a good RFC close to me. The RFC was malformed (see

1937:

and thanking them for their non-existent contributions...then

1341: 14790:

Can an admin please consider applying blocks and protection?

10708:

I think I can help on the signposting. The central RFC page,

6874:

Gingeksace has created over 60 articles on the Italian poet,

6565:

says the very same thing about Greek sources being worthless.

4598:

by Zemen (imagine if I included their disruptive edits too).

4300: 2919:(above, albeit slightly qualified) and an edit summary about 2399:

Comment: Any issues other than WP:BLUD, use appropriate forum

13420:, and now seems like as good a time as any to take a break. 13062:

I think I had a nightmare that the ArbCom case was accepted!

12464:

This IP has just restored their preferred infobox poster at

10881:

I stand corrected: thanks for pointing that out, Nil Einne.

8170:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Leicesterdedlock/Archive

7630:

between forgetting the passwords for two different accounts?

5278:

but I'd like to ask them if they used an LLM to create e.g.

4840:#WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS with a dose of xenophobia by M7md AAAA 1780:

and quit trying to be the grand inquisitor of this article.

14501: 13120: 10482:

Before I answer that question, please tell me how you (not

9869:

I think we can avoid bothering ArbCom. My recommendations:

9472:. You might consider moving this case to that noticeboard. 8531:

TPA yanked, Cullen admonished for not sharing his pizza :D

8462:

WP:Articles for deletion/Cilento International Poetry Prize

8196:

I was going to INDEF for DE, which this absolutely is, but

6696:

due to their doubling down on the use of personal attacks (

3002:

editing in the past, resulting in two previous ANI threads

2917:

the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since

1851:, as well as renaming mentions of it on different articles 1485:, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! 14733: 9513: 9433:

it needs ArbComm anyway so this step appears unnecessary.

7691:

Hopefully someone will open a sockpuppet investigation at

7378: 7285:– an associate of Lerro who wrote about Lerro and Empathis 4648:

Just wishin' you good luck? now u can end this discussion.

4624:...and im right that youre a farsist (maybe اطلاعات) glo. 4046:

Just wishin' you good luck? now u can end this discussion.

3057:

In 1914, the organisation relocated to larger premises in

1684:

Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

11259: 9788:

It doesn't, but it can be a symptom of a larger problem.

9495: 6935:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gingeksace#August_2022

5704:

as user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia.

2543:

to restore the context. Feel free to also wrap them in a

1680:

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

10390:. They have even gone further and made personal attacks 10221: 9592:"specifically ask that *I* review my own block and that 9507: 9237:) overzealously blocking a user based on "vibes", I saw 7515:, which the user goes on to state is (in their opinion) 4891:

efforts. I think they've shown remarkable restraint and

4684:, however, instead of warning/blocking Zemen, joins the 4451:, Your interpretations are not good, I hope you think a 2203:

Show me where the central government approved the name.

2001: 1688:

Talk:Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

14140:). A block of this user may be warranted. Thank you. 11086:

Characterize me as "pedantic" if you want, but listing

9976:) so I'll keep in mind options like that in the future. 8208:

as sockpuppetry. Do we need a CU to link the two SPIs?

7936:; please add any other evidence you think is relevant. 7295:

2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore

6094:, which made you immediately start your attacks. Also, 2754:

foundation:Legal:Community Health Legal Defense Program

14950:

which he has also made a speedily deleted article for

14559: 14281: 9646: 9586:

I'd also say that, with this being a new editor, that

9501: 7688:, i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user. 7519:. They then state the desirability, in their eyes, of 7517:

not a big problem if the author is indeed Enciclopedic

3786:

There is too much here that is strongly suggestive of

2297:

Any issues other than WP:BLUD, use appropriate forum.

14617: 14128:) be checked to see if they are a sockpuppet of the " 13843:

support a 6-month restriction from content assessment

11929:

on 25 September, which were just vandalism and hoax.

10962:

It is exactly the same conduct. I note that you have

10867:" so did sort of tell us what these RfCs were about. 10740:

with no evidence is going to get you in hot water. —

9114:

order that this article should be taken down speedily

5983:

After that comment, I asked them to remember to have

5562:

Sigh. I've blocked them from uploading files too. --

2189:

The proposal was accepted by MOS for Civil Aviation.

33:

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

13416:

your pending reviews to be claimed by someone else.

13301:

content review, contests, and editathons for a while

12943:

I got called "crazy" by an editor whose sidekick is

12572: