User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2024

This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Aoidh/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

Hello Aoidh.

As per the Arbcom change in case on the topic banning of me from I-P articles, I have a question for the possible result that I am topic-banned from Israel-Palestine articles. Am I prohibited from editing any articles about Israel, or just about the conflict in particular. A lot of the articles I create are about Israel in general during the Old Yishuv, but do not necessarily have anything to do with the current conflict (see articles such as Lämel School, Kollel Hod, Batei Mahse). Assuming a resolution is passed that topic-bans me from I-P, would the "broadly construed" prohibit these types of articles? TIA!

EytanMelech (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@EytanMelech: The topic ban would be from edits that would fall under the "Arab–Israeli conflict" contentious topic. It would not be a blanket restriction from all Israeli topics, but from edits in the area of conflict. The wording broadly construed should however be kept in mind, given that there is a reasonable potential for overlap between an edit being about an Israeli topic and "edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict". - Aoidh (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! EytanMelech (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello I created a page "Lamiere" which was deleted and I was in communication with the person who deleted the page, I was accused of receiving payment, I expressed I did not, I was told that the quality of the articles are not good sources and likely press releases, I express that this is a speculative claim and in hip hop arguably all articles concerning artist are results of press releases, and that he may not understand the culture. Then lastly he said the article was an advertisement and deleted the page. I believe this was wrongfully done and it should be reversed and sent to drafts where I can add more articles after additional research. Is this man out to sabotage certain artist? I also showed him several pages with simmilar artist, and its become about ego, Im not sure if you are the right person to make this request but can you please take and if possible reverse the deletion and send it back to drafts, the claims for deletion are just not true. and I intend to adhere to the policies of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadedavis1990 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sadedavis1990: Having reviewed the content and sources of the deleted article Lamiere I have to agree that the deletion of the article was well within the deleting administrator Seraphimblade's discretion. Even if it were not an "unambiguous advertising or promotion" (WP:G11) it shows "no indication of importance" (WP:A7). Making music and appearing on Snapchat is not a credible claim of significance. While not directly related to the deleted article, i did want to address where you said I express that this is a speculative claim and in hip hop arguably all articles concerning artist are results of press releases, and that he may not understand the culture., as this is an inaccurate assessment of the level of sourcing available in this topic area. There is a WikiProject called WikiProject Hip hop dedicated to improving coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia where you can also find examples of high-quality sourcing in articles; see for example articles listed in Category:FA-Class Hip hop articles and Category:GA-Class Hip hop articles, though what is listed there is not just artists, and some of the articles listed there will not be strictly or solely focused on hip hop.

Even outside of those FA/GA-class articles however, one can look at an article like De La Soul and see that while not all of the sources are strictly independent of the subject, there are more than enough sources that are not press releases or churnalism and notability via WP:MUSICBIO is demonstrated. Articles sometimes include some content based on information provided by the subject, but no matter what the subject is, those sources should not form the basis of an article. Given that the article Lamiere was also a biography of a living person, the reliability and quality of the sources are especially critical. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sir, I created new article, reverted some vandal changes and submitted Extended-confirmed-protected edit request. I think i improved myself. I want to use the translation program. Can i request extendedconfirmed again ? LionelCristiano (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@LionelCristiano: Given the short period of time since the last requests I would highly advise against making another one so soon; my suggestion would be to time some time (several months) editing on the English Wikipedia to get a better understanding of editing practices before submitting another request. Just looking at your last few edits for example, changing facts in an article as you did here is not a minor edit. More importantly, you recently added an unsourced name to a BLP article that specifically had an editing note in the lede that said <!--See WP:BLPPRIVACY before adding birth names/dates-->. When your edit was reverted you re-added the name but added a WP:FANDOM source as a reference, which is not a reliable source to begin with, but especially for sensitive content related to biographies of living persons. Given that this falls squarely into the BLP contentious topic area I highly suggest you read WP:BLPPRIVACY and the WP:BLP page as a whole. - Aoidh (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok Sir, I will read them all. I wrote it because it was written on eswiki. LionelCristiano (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good reason why more experience is necessary before using the translation tool; just because something is present in another article (even the same article on another language's Wikipedia project) does not mean it is appropriate for a English Wikipedia article. It also may not even be appropriate for the article on that language's Wikipedia and just hasn't been noticed and removed yet. Especially with BLP articles, you need to be familiar with what is and is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia rather than just copying over text, as each language's Wikipedia has different standards and practices. - Aoidh (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you Sir. I will work harder. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You blocked User:Daviddayag from editing Andromeda Galaxy due to edit warring. A recent edit by a suspicious IP made the same change. It may be best to increase the protection level of the page. Let me know if you'd rather I go to WP:RPP to address this. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that it is this editor logged out, but given that they are not the only editor to edit war over this change it doesn't necessarily indicate that it could only be them. While you're here I do also want to point out that in this edit summary you mention you are Performing my third of three reverts but Wikipedia:Edit warring points out that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. and WP:3RR further elaborates that (regarding 3RR) The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Going up to three edits and then stopping is still edit warring and could still result in a block, which is something I would advise keeping in mind moving forward. I don't think it's appropriate to protect the page at this time but if the IP continues edit warring that might be worth looking into. - Aoidh (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh, is there any way to file a WP:SPI against two accounts those two accounts were made in the same time/months three year ago? And both accounts are not blocked yet but their actions largely overlap? So we can file a SPI case against such two accounts? Or it is necessary to one of account must be blocked before? Please reply if you got some time. If yes you can leave link to read before filing such case.?2404:3100:189A:F508:1:0:38F2:BBCA (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement that any account is currently or has been blocked, what an SPI needs is evidence, typically in the form of diffs. A guide can be found both at the top of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations page itself as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. - Aoidh (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh so what we can add in the Sock master slot? As in suspected sock we can add new accounts names but what we can add in the sock master name ? When we don't have a block account as master before.? Or we don't have an idea about it.2404:3100:1895:E157:1:0:3978:44E6 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Following the instructions at the "How to open an investigation" box at WP:SPI you would simply enter the username of the oldest-created registered account. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that Spicy (talk · contribs) blocked Rick Beato1 (talk · contribs) and that someone oversighted some of his edits. Would you mind suppressing the phone number and other sensitive info on WP:EFFPR? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see you or someone else did it. Thanks! – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@PharyngealImplosive7: It was revision deleted but has now also been oversighted. Thank you for alerting me, however when coming across content that needs oversight the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight should be used rather than leaving a message on a user talk page, to avoid drawing attention to the contents of the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know. Thanks for letting me know. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Should not have given him a loophole. Plugged. The newly TBANned sometimes test their limits, but he should no better. I should have too.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Be damned if I do. He kept going after i clarified. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I guess we'll see how this goes. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh, the IP you blocked is connected to the school its article they vandalised. Not asking to change the block or anything. Just FYI. Nobody (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm trying to add a link to the Equality Cup to this page: Shanghai Shenhua F.C., but a user keeps reverting it with invalid reasons. First he said the cup wasn't notable enough, then when I explained why it is notable, his new reason for reverting it is that "Shenhua is notable enough in itself" (?). Please see [1] -- 𩇔 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, in which case I would suggest using dispute resolution options, such as discussing it at the article's talk page, and utilizing WP:3O if that does not resolve the dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Relating to these two (1, 2) reports at WP:AN/EW which you closed, it appears that the two editors in question have continued edit-warring over the same content 1, 2, despite being previously warned. Could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That page is under a 1RR restriction, but it doesn't appear that either editor has violated that restriction. Though they have both made two reverts over the last 12 days, I don't think it's something that is immediately actionable in terms of edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the situation. I understand your reasoning and see that the situation is not immediately actionable. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

i notice a sock puppet account, who is possibly conducting WP:ILLEGIT

@109.76.192.22, @109.255.172.169, and possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erik

the first two used the same vocabulary "equivocate" in recent edits on The Woman King would appreciate if you could investigate, i would accept any decisions thanks Merzostin (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As a Checkuser I cannot connect an account to an IP per WP:CUIPDISCLOSE, so any connection between them would have to be behavioral evidence. The word "equivocate" is used by both IPs (here and here) but not by Erik. As for the IPs themselves I don't see any instance of the IPs alleging to be different editors. One of the IPs hasn't edited since the newer IP began, which often indicates that the IP being used has changed, and isn't necessarily a sign of any attempt to WP:IPSOCK. - Aoidh (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you for your help, it's just felt strange that these 2 IPs use the same vocabulary and also has the same "agenda" anyhow that's it i suppose Merzostin (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@109.76.202.116 just give me reference to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48?wprov=srpw1_1#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative

filled with Erick's comments, definitely raised my eyebrow, but then again even if it is without better evidence it's hard to determine right Merzostin (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Aoidh, how are you? I would like to apply for extendedconfirmed if it is okay with you. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lionel Cristiano: While you certainly don't need my permission to do so, if you're going to request the permission I think you should briefly acknowledge the issue that caused the permission to be removed and show in your request, with diffs, how issues like those previously discussed (such as the previous discussion on this talk page, the ANI discussion, and the previous request) have been addressed and will no longer be an issue. I may comment on the request but I'm not going to approve or deny it personally. - Aoidh (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh. Sorry for bothering you guys so much, I am just very concerned with the POV pushing these past months. I know you guys are busy, but do you have a rough estimate of when I can expect a reply regarding my ArbCom case? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm following up internally and any response will be via email, thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

	POTUS
	Kind regards. Lionel Cristiano? 01:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh, Yesterday I reverted an edit by User:DaquavionJohnsonSmith and left a level 2 warning on their talk page. But I noticed today that their inappropriay contributions at Redlands High School go back to October 2023 and have been reverted by multiple other editors as vandalism. Is it time for a block? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: I've left them a message on their talk page, if it continues a block might be necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! On 13 June you blocked 86.44.48.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring. I wanted to let you know that since the block has expired, the user has resumed edit warring on the same articles they were editing previously. For example, on The Garfield Movie they have made essentially the same edit five times since 17 June, all of which have been reverted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. CodeTalker (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: I have blocked them for 2 weeks. - Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Similar to the edit waring incident reported in ANB, I am faced with a similar situation were my removal of newly added content that is in disputed have been reverted by a user claiming that that my edits have been disruptive and accused of Wikipedia:Advocacy by violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I feel that the reasons I gave for the removal of the newly added content is valid [2], [3], [4]. Please can I ask you to intervein. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I won't be speaking for the other user but I had thought about reporting you to an admin user page for the same reason.

You appear to continue gaming the system despite the admin @Daniel Case calling you out on this very behavior in AN3 and despite admin @TomStar81 issuing 1RR warning in ANI. You have been trying to remove the same content for weeks now, this being your 5th attempt [1][2][3][4][5], despite three other users opposing your move and despite there being an active talk discussion on it. I don't see this behavior subsiding any time soon given the WP:SPA behavioral pattern. Admin intervention is needed.---Petextrodon (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Kalanishashika why are you determined to remove https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51184085 from the article? It's BBC– one of the most reliable sites on the internet. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio, I don't question the sources. Only the content. The content here is not directly relevant to this article. There is another article on this subject where is should be included. I explained this here [5]. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The content is directly relevant to the article, it is relevant to the tens of thousands of 'enforced disappearances' of Tamils, which has been described by cited scholars as a genocidal act. Oz346 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika and Petextrodon: I will take a look, but it may result in implementing CTOP restrictions to minimize disruption in the page or topic area. Ideally this dispute would be something that could be worked out without an administrator's intervention, but if necessary it may result in one or more editors being page or topic banned to prevent further disruption. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh, the issue here is that the editors Oz346, Petextrodon and‎ Pharaoh of the Wizards, seem to be pushing content want and aggressively pushing out content of others or changes. I kindly request you to review this behavior, and advice no it. They don't seem to respect rules such as Wikipedia:Civility see [6] and I am trying to resoulve this in the talk page [7]. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a question why Petextrodon is speaking on behalf of Oz346 and vis versa? This seems like a tag team. Is this why a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Okiloma#05_June_2024 was reported? Kalanishashika (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Where am I speaking on behalf of another? That is a false allegation. If I find something objectionable, I will call it out. I object to your unjustified removal of government crimes and their repercussions on Wikipedia, especially as they are supported by cited sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika Strange you should make that accusation right after I began my reply saying I won't be speaking for the other user. Anyway, I also asked you a question at the ANI report you filed but it was archived before you could reply. So I would like to post it here if you don't mind:

Anyone is allowed to edit any article here but I have two questions if you don't mind.

1) How did you find the Tamil genocide article given your first edits were about public figures? 2) Have you drawn any influence from the edit history of any Sri Lanka topics editor when you challenged the UTHR as a primary source; when you implied that a source must be vetted by RSN before it could be cited; when you gave explicit attribution to certain sources; when you asked third parties at RSN to audit sources used in Tamil genocide article? Thanks.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, I will not respond to these two questions here for the same reason I did not do so in the ANI. These questions I consider to be very personal, and I don't believe I have to respond to such questions, when asked by a fellow editor such as yourself. If these are asked by an Admin, that's a different matter, I will consider it. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika: Here is what I recommend: if you object to content in the article, start a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why the content should not be in the article. Do not comment on any editor or anything previously said, those are distractions and will result in the discussion derailing and nothing getting done which is exactly what happened previously. @Petextrodon and Oz346: if Kalanishashika starts a discussion as mentioned, return the same courtesy and focus on the content. Don't discuss any editors or things previously said and instead focus on the content. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, and given that this is in a contentious topic area, CTOPS restrictions will likely be implemented if editors are unable to edit in this topic area constructively. - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking to make a LTA for User:Kamen rider saber. Another account has just appeared and you blocked it. There are now a bunch of accounts [8] being created to vandalize Wikipedia. I am just asking do we need a LTA? Cheers --Martin^talk 06:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the previous SPI comments from User:Spicy citing WP:DENY; I don't think there needs to be an LTA page for this type of editing when it just going to get blocked either way. - Aoidh (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 52 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this original barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

report ‎ TutuNaik0 by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sunuraju: The editor TutuNaik0 (talk · contribs) had been blocked for about 20 hours when you left this message, and "report ‎TutuNaik0" with no context isn't as likely to be actioned without explaining what the issue is. - Aoidh (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I was doing some Huggle patrolling and ran into User talk:174.178.121.115, where a blocked IP has been making a bunch of edits to their talk that seem like they would be vandalism on any other page. Is this something I should being to AIV or another forum, or is there nothing more we'd typically do? Hamtechperson 19:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hamtechperson: Given that this shows no sign of ceasing, I've pulled talk page access per WP:TPA. - Aoidh (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Hamtechperson 20:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aoidh :) !

I have a problem with the user named @Geom. This user has changed my work in two different wikis (the Spanish site and the English site), so I think he is making these changes to damage my texts deliberately and without any reason.

I would like a librarian to review the changes he has made and undo them if he thinks my article was fine as it was.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to proceed in this case. Can you please tell me where I should ask for help?

Thanks in advance. Nonickillo (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nonickillo: Each language is its own project on Wikipedia, and I am not familiar enough with es.wiki (Wikipedia en español) to be able to comment on that, but from what I can see on the English Wikipedia, the only time they have interacted with you is a revert to El amor de mi bohío. My suggestion would be to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. However, I have to agree in part with the revert, since describing the composer as "the great Cuban composer Julio Brito" is a MOS:PUFFERY issue and should be avoided. - Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aoidh, thanks so much for your kind response :) . Don't worry, I'm not concerned about Spanish Wikipedia right now, they have a lot of restrictive rules that makes near impossible to write there. My experience in the Spanish Wikipedia has not been entirely positive in terms of trying to reason and asking for help. That's why I have decided not to write anything more in Spanish. For this reason I don't want to deal with those users here too, I prefer a librarian to mediate in such "editing wars", if possible. Ok, I understand what you're saying about avoiding describing the author as "the great Cuban composer Julio Brito." I'll delete it right now, no problem. Is there anything else that you think I should be aware of? Thank you so much. All the best. Nonickillo (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hola, Aoidh. It seems that Nonickillo does not know the assumption of good faith. The Spanish version of es:El amor de mi bohío currently has a template equivalent to Template:Notability, but could be deleted in less than 30 days. That's why I removed the non-encyclopedic content on eswiki and did the same on the enwiki version.

• The first thing I did was connect the page to the Wikidata record that it didn't have.
• He said: "This user has changed my work". WP:OWN, Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone. No one can think that they have the right to appropriate part or all of the content of a page. I edited it today, but you must assume that anyone else will change, remove, or add the content at any time. And if the editing is correct, it should not be reversed.
• I made that edit on eswiki and here because that article is about the song El amor de mi bohío, not about its author, who already has his own page to put his photos and nicknames. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

I just did that and I think the revert and subsequent comments are unnecessary. Nonickillo has only edited about this author and his songs. With a single edition there can be no edition war or even any persecution, only voluntary and routine work. The one who could complain is me, who has had a normal edit reverted as if it were vandalism. As you have already mentioned, this is not the place to talk about this. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers --Geom (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, @Aoidh :)! By allusions, I must clarify that:

• There can be no good faith without dialogue, and that has been impossible for me in the Spanish Wikipedia.
• Of course I assume that articles can be changed, but what I don't think is necessary is to eliminate things like the fact that the author of the song is known by a nickname (a fact that is reliably referenced) or the image of the author, who was the first interpreter of the song. These changes seem unnecessary to me. As I understand it, the changes should improve the article, not destroy it.
• As for the template about the encyclopedic relevance of the article in eswiki, there is already a librarian who has stated that, in his opinion, this template is unnecessary, since the song is relevant enough to have an entry of its own.

In any case, as I said before: @Aoidh if in your opinion I should change anything else in the article to make it conform to enwiki's rules, I'll be glad to do it. Best regards :) !--Nonickillo (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Aoidh. Since our last discussion here involving the user Kalanishashika, they have gone back to edit warring on the Tamil genocide article and have once again gamed the system by reverting 1RR protected article outside the 24-hours limit.[1][2] They reverted before even engaging the talk discussion that I had opened. They were instead openly canvassing other users in another discussion. This is despite knowing that Sri Lanka is a contentious topic and being warned by an admin about gaming the system last time. I don't see this disruptive behaviour subsiding without admin intervention.---Petextrodon (talk) Petextrodon (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at this statement. As I have indicated in the page comment, my revert today have been to return the page to the content before the current dispute took place and engage in the talk page discussion, which I did. As I indicated in my comments, I have been clear that my intentions are to avoid an edit war like last time. However, like last time, Petextrodon seem to have engaged in personal attacks on me by reporting Sockpuppet investigation, leveling accusations which I clearly answered last time. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You intended to avoid an edit war by reverting for the second time while ignoring the discussion I had opened yesterday even as you were canvassing another banned user Kashmiri whom you were tag-teaming with in the past? I will let the admin decide.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon and Kalanishashika: it may be time to use a form of dispute resolution such as WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh, yes please. In the meantime, I feel that both Petextrodon and Oz346 are trying to intimidate me in more than one way. Petextrodon has reported a Sockpuppet investigation claiming that I am a meatpuppet, only a day later Oz346 has reported another Sockpuppet investigation. I honestly don't feel that this was done in good faith, and this is exhausting, since [not the first time] (I found out only later). What's annoying is that's the same set of reasons that keep coming up, like the about BLP. I mean one wrong step (if it is a wrong step) and they come down on me like a load bricks. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I never notified you of the SPI request for you to consider it an intimidation. You obviously have gone through my edit history.

My complaint is about this user repeatedly gaming the system to force their version. How should I address this issue if it continues in the future? Even a warning by an admin has not worked.---Petextrodon (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, so you mean to say your intentions were not intimidation, but to get admins to sanction me? Is that what Oz346 meant by this comment? I must say that two SPIs within two days seems excessive to me. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Each time a user adds details on government crimes to the article you challenge it in some way and resort to edit war. My concern is that you're obstructing other editors by constant stonewalling. Would you like to state your conflict of interest if there is any, as after all you did vote to get the article deleted?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, anyone who goes through the edit log of the page would see that you and Oz346, have been editing it the way you want. You two seem to remove any content that you disagree with and engage in edit waring when someone disagree with content you two add. You seem to want to keep your newly added content and go into the talk page defending it. While content of others you remove and argue preventing it from being added disregarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Right now, you have started an argument on an admin page, with the sole intention of getting the admin to sanction me, while Oz346 has done the same on SPI. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think you have engaged in sanctionable behaviour repeatedly and sanction may by the last remedy in intractable cases. As you seem to have gotten off the hook once again, there's no point in continuing this discussion which was about edit warring.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, there was no point in starting this discussion in someone's talk page like some soap opera. If you felt that my behavior was sanctionable you should have taken it to the appropriate forum, not try to canvas an admin to sanction me. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I will file an arbitration request at WP:ARE if this behaviour persists.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This Case. I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't even consider the reason I reverted the change on San Bernardino County, California (that having presidential election results on county pages is a long established thing that exists on most if not all other county pages and shouldn't be done without seeking a new consensus), and I don't have much time to do edits on Wikipedia today anyway (the Census Bureau changed their API so I'd have to do more work to even do much slower semi-automated updates to populations, so those are not getting updated anymore but that's another story).

Anyway, is the arbitration over now that it's September 4 and decision final date was September 3? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemocraticLuntz: 3 September was the date when the proposed decision was due, meaning the drafters for the case had until that date to post the proposed decision on Wikipedia. The case is not over until the vote to close the case has passed, as some arbs are still determining their position on each aspect of the proposed decision. - Aoidh (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the edit! Just a clarification, "Gwinnett County Public Schools" does not mean a collection of schools per se, but rather, the proper name of the school district. A lot of US school districts have proper names of "---- Public Schools". I'm trying to communicate that it's within the district's boundaries.

When I am talking about a collection of schools, I use "Gwinnett County Public Schools schools", the common noun "schools" (uncapitalized) referring to the schools within the district. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know about this "Aoidh2" account: [9]. Just three edits so far, not sure what the plan is but the oblique reference to "wikipedia admins" got my attention. Oblivy (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. Oblivy (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can you clarify details of the topic ban? Specifically, may I edit other parts of pages that also happen to contain some election results (specifically, may I edit ``other" parts of incorporated place and county pages (demographics, (non-electoral) history, etc.)? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemocraticLuntz: As long as such edits have nothing to do with national or subnational elections (as a US-based example, subnational includes county and town/municipal elections, not just state-level elections), that is correct. - Aoidh (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you marked a living person with |living=no in this edit somehow. Hopefully that is not rater adding that automatically — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I'm not sure if it was the case in November 2023 or if it's just recently, but for me it does automatically mark the living parameter as living=no for WikiProject Biography banners and I need to check it to mark it as living=yes or the click it twice to remove the value altogether or I'd need to delete it. It's likely that I didn't notice that it populated that when using rater since I was looking at the banner shell's value. - Aoidh (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Special:Contributions/203.17.70.53. FYI that is WP:UNID whom I haven't noticed for years. He adds links using a domain that he controls while having the domain redirect to a good website. Later (when we've all decided that the link is ok), he changes it to redirect to some page he wants to promote. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I get word of advise in what to do at Talk:Breyers? I posted on NPOV/N and received some input from others and got some input on the talk page, but an editor and I clearly do not agree and there's no consensus to go with their version based on input, but other editors haven't stepped into article editing. I'm messaging you, based on Special:Diff/1233063011. Since there are more than two of us at talk page, 3PO can't be used. Where to go from here? Thank you Graywalls (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: WP:3O is not the only form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, there is also for example Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Requests for comment (WP:RFC) and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN). While I have blocked Zefr for edit warring, I do want to comment on this edit summary and point out that Wikipedia:Edit warring notes that the three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. I would advise that you do not continue to revert this content to avoid being blocked for edit warring yourself, but seek dispute resolution as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I reached out you since I realized it wasn't getting anywhere between either of us and did not want to continue the back and forth and just seeking input on how I should proceed. I know doing a 3PO is quite easy, but making a 3PO request does require narrowing it down much further and proposing a more specific idea, doesn't it? I've never done DRN, so I'm not sure how to prepare one. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: The very top of WP:DRN goes into detail about what DRN is for, and if you press the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request there it will help you create the request, though if DRN is requested you should wait until User:Zefr is unblocked so that they can participate in the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pls help me as the sock puppet of self made theory is threatening me. You can get evidence on my talk page. Wiki king 100000 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki king 100000: The editor in question has been blocked by another administrator not long after you posted this message, which seems to resolve the issue for now. - Aoidh (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 12:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Lately I'm not usually near my computer around 0800-1400 UTC, but I'm available now. What's up? - Aoidh (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Emailed you. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Please look at this source and can you give opinion if you think this is independent of the subject MSOE Muslim Sisters of Éire. I believe it is not independent because of the many interview quotes from the members, volunteers and coordinators at MSOE. You gave an opinion on interviews Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Interviews. Was the comment for articles with pure interviews or also meant for articles like the IrishTimes where you have many interview quotes from the subject? Can you please give some time to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RangersRus_conduct ? RangersRus (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@RangersRus: I apologize, but at the moment my Wikipedia time is mostly focused on an Arbitration case, though I'll note here that having quotes from an interview doesn't necessarily make the entire reference an interview, though that line gets somewhat fuzzy at times. - Aoidh (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That is right "fuzzy". @Black Kite:, because I came from AFD platform where the interviews or interview quotes as non-independent were interpreted differently, now I am learning something different at AFC platform and I do agree with you also. The line like Aoidh said is sometimes fuzzy but is there a way that it can be more broadly explained on one of the policies by taking different scenarios, because it will tremendously help to clear lot of confusion on interviews. I hope we end this on good note and I can continue to learn more from experienced editors like you and Aoidh and hope we can work together and get your advice if needed. @Aoidh: if you have something more to add, please do. RangersRus (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Please note that User:GustavoCza is again on the verge of 3RR at Chris Martin (first sentance "best known" vs "widely known", and has engaged in a personal attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Martin&diff=1262488538&oldid=1262470233 here) to maintain his version of the article. It seems the editor has a prominent history of Ownership. Your eyes on the article would be greatly appreciated.842U (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@842U: I may not be able to review this in a timely manner, I would highly suggest opening a report at WP:ANEW. - Aoidh (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@842U: I've looked at the history of the article and talk page, and GustavoCza making two reverts to the WP:STATUSQUO version of the article over three days isn't on the verge of 3RR. Per WP:BRD I would suggest reading and participating in the discussion at Talk:Chris Martin#"best known for" to try to get a consensus for your preferred changes. That said, @GustavoCza: the past part of your edit summary was entirely inappropriate. You were blocked in August for edit warring and incivility; if you continue with the inappropriate commentary you will be blocked, and if I'm the blocking administrator it will be an indefinite block until you can show that you understand that this is not appropriate and will not continue. There is no reason for comments like that, it serves no purpose but to inflame disputes. - Aoidh (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Would it be posible to watch over this aggressive editing style. I am also concerned with what is happening at Talk:Canada#Ethnic Origins and User talk:Moxy#I am honestly just confused, because you are saying the data is incorrect with no evidence when it comes to editwaring and not understanding the problem being raised. Basically stating they will reisert their preferred version.....that is also a concern here with an editwar over the same info they were originally blocked for. Moxy🍁 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hopeful that things like this can stop Moxy🍁 21:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Being harassed at this point

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:14, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:13, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:13, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs

17:13, December 19, 2024 C.monarchist28 talk contribs thanked Moxy talk contribs Moxy🍁 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@C.monarchist28: Could you explain this, as well as this comment and how it's compatible with the last paragraph of your unblock reuest? This seems like a return to the behavior that resulted in an indefinite block, one you assured the unblocking administrator will not happen again. - Aoidh (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Since we are in an edit dispute which we are resolving on a talk page, I just Wiki dived for fun and for no reason went on a page titled Moxy and was curious in seeing (but was not expecting to see) if the user Moxy themselves had edited it and found it sort of funny that they had. Hmm. Wasn't meant to be harassment. Genuinely just banter... we are resolving a dispute on a talk and I have no intention to cause anything negative... C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I was genuinely asking if they were serious or not. I asked if they were actually trolling because they said we need to "regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data", but the source they are saying to regurgitate matches my calculations. I would recommend you go to Talk:Canada#Ethnic_Origins and see my very first response where I talk about how the data actually matches up perfectly. One quick example, the source they provide states "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White" while my edits (using the same Census data by Statistics Canada) states 67.4% of the population is white. But Moxy was they had a problem "with my calculations" (I made no calculations, just took raw govt data). Yes, I thought they were messing with me because they are insistent on contending my edits when I keep on explaining every concern just fine. I asked what they meant by "problem with my calculations" and didn't really get anything of substance back, in my honest opinion. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked C.monarchist28 (talk · contribs) per my comment on their talk page. @C.monarchist28: that your edits are contested and you believe the explanations given are insufficient does not warrant comments like that, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by accusing someone of trolling just because you personally find their explanations insufficient. That's never going to resolve a dispute, and at best will only inflame a discussion and distract from the substance of the disputed content. Judging by the comments currently on the talk page, it seems that Moxy's explanation is neither inscrutable nor trolling. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why did you just delete all of those information? Bring it back! Johnny test person (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnny test person: Regarding my removal of that content, information on Wikipedia must be verifiable the level of detail in an article must reflect its prominence in reliable sources. Having that much prose in the article dedicated to unsourced fictional character biographies of each character in the show the article covers is not an appropriate level of detail for the article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have mentioned the names episodes of the information I wrote. Just watch the episodes again before removing it! Johnny test person (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnny test person: You having watched an episode is not a reliable source, and unless there's coverage of these characters in independent sources then it's an undue level of detail for the article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So prove me that my edits are wrong then I will accept it Johnny test person (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, it is you who must demonstrate that the contested and unsourced content belongs in the article, it is not up to others to provide the opposite. I would suggest addressing those issues, as consistently reverting to restore the unsourced content without addressing the issues will not result in the content remaining in the article and may result in being blocked. Repeatedly undoing the edit is not the way to resolve the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I also don‘t understand why you deleted literally everything. I edited only some little parts. And only today. Before that the whole information were there. Explain why? Johnny test person (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Because all of it is unsourced and is an inappropriate level of detail for the article, and has been for quite a while. I removed it today because I saw it today. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)