Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here. Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Click here to start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	3	30	77	110
TfD	0	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	3	9	12
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 45 sockpuppet investigations
• 3 Candidates for speedy deletion
  • 0 Duplicate files
• 7 Fully-protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• -1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 31 elapsed requested moves
• 13 requested closures
• 93 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 4346 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin DJ Kelblizz (Nigerian DJ) 2023-04-22 11:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Z (military symbol) 2023-04-22 11:30 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War Prolog Thomas Robb (Ku Klux Klan) 2023-04-22 02:03 indefinite move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Candy Bleakz 2023-04-21 22:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Multiple paid editing drafts in progress - protection can be removed when there is an approved draft Ponyo Terrorism in Pakistan 2023-04-21 18:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Infobox YouTube personality/styles.css 2023-04-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2536 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jack Teixeira 2023-04-21 13:37 indefinite edit,move Violations of the general sanctions, WP:GS/RUSUKR Courcelles Imad Mughniyeh 2023-04-21 03:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP request and A/I/PIA CTOPS; will log Daniel Case John Chorley 2023-04-21 03:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bradv Awan (tribe) 2023-04-21 02:19 indefinite edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: A long-running pattern of disruption. See the protection log EdJohnston Reliance Industries 2023-04-21 00:35 2023-05-21 00:35 edit,move UtherSRG Marjorie Taylor Greene 2023-04-20 21:11 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute Isabelle Belato Reliance Global Corporate Security 2023-04-20 20:17 2024-04-20 20:17 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Smartse Hoshangabad district 2023-04-20 15:54 indefinite move Move warring UtherSRG Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir 2023-04-20 06:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA El C Killing of Kaylin Gillis 2023-04-20 01:01 2023-04-27 01:01 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Lots of BLP violations for this current event article. Mirroring decision made for article about another recent shooting: that of Ralph Yarl. Moncrief Blooket 2023-04-19 13:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Vladimir Kara-Murza 2023-04-19 10:22 indefinite edit,move General sanctions, W P:GSRUSUKR Courcelles Tamaz Somkhishvili 2023-04-19 07:05 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR-driven disruption El C Al Hasan Milad 2023-04-19 03:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bradv Template:Centralized discussion 2023-04-18 22:33 indefinite edit Highly visible template, reduce to ECP since there is a legitimate need for non-TE editors to make changes to this template frequently Scottywong Template:Editnotice for lists of people 2023-04-18 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Uebert Angel 2023-04-18 16:16 indefinite edit,move Disruptive and deceptive editing by autoconfirmed users, one of the obviously autoconfirmed through gaming our rules. Extended confirmed protection will hopefully make it a little harder for UE followers to promote him here. Bishonen

Biased editing of HistoryofIran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Karabakh khanate english wikipedia page HistoryofIran account removed my sourced azerbaijani caucasian khanate term to only caucasian withput adding any source. Azerbaijan related topics are very common to have anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing. Please check this and restore my sourced editing or at least add source to HistoryofIran editing. Leamsezadah (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:OUCH

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

Remember to notify me next time. WP:OUCH; This user either lacks access to the edit summaries of other users (they talk as if I didn't explain myself [1]) or they have WP:CIR and WP:POV issues. I would wager the latter. Am I being too hasty or having bad faith for immediately making such a conclusion? No, I've been editing for 10 years in these type of (problematic) articles and I know a user who is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia when I see one. Leamsezadah has been editing since 2020 (and very randomly/inconsistently, as they were a sleeper account), and I'd wager not a single edit of theirs have been helpful.

Here they added an anachronistic Azerbaijani transliteration to a figure who didnt even speak it, which makes sense as the language didnt exist back then [2]. Here they disregarded what WP:RS said in the article and removed "Azeri", replacing it with "Azerbaijani" [3]. Here they randomly removed the sourced mention of "Turkish" [4] [5]. They did the same here too [6] [7]

As for the recent issue in which Leamsezadah accuses me (WP:ASPERSIONS) of being "biased" (which is rich) and having an "anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing.", let me explain;

At Karabakh Khanate they replaced "Turkic" with "Azerbaijani" [8] [9], adding two cherrypicked sources. And thus now the article said "Azerbaijani khanate" and "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate". Not only is "Azerbaijani" anachronstic once again here, as they weren't an ethnonym back then (though admittedly some WP:RS still uses that term for this period), the name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Khanates of Azerbaijan" or "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus". So in other words, Leamsezadah disregarded the name of the article to push their pov.

Sorry if I might come across as a bit arrogant here, I just woke up. Anyways, based on this I propose a indef block for Leamsezadah. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute. Why aren't these disagreements being discussed on the articles in question. Nemov (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  i was worried about power inequality so i posted it here Leamsezadah (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, WP:AN is for more clear conduct issues. They reverted you a single time; and while you did provide a source, nothing about your edit was so obviously necessary that simply objecting to it and reverting it would be a problem. (See WP:ONUS; verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, so reverting a sourced edit is not axiomatically improper.) You should take it to talk and try to hash it out there. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for information dear Aquillion.

I will try to do my best after this. But sometimes i do not really to do, it may be complicated sometimes Leamsezadah (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I certainly did not call you racist. but I noted that articles about azerbaijan often contain vandalism and bias. this is also true for articles on Armenia(by nationalist turkish and azerbaijanis). That's why I asked to be checked.

Don't I contribute to Wikipedia? I am the creator or translator of many articles on Catholicism in the Azerbaijani language. At the same time, the religious importance of the Apostle Bartholomew for the azerbaijan christian laity and officals was placed in the article thanks to me. Of course, I had some unnecessary parts because I didn't know some rules. However, Apostle Bartholomew's article came to be inclusive as it is now, with my contributions playing a major role. Please understand that wikipedia is not anyone's personal space, we can all contribute and no one gives you the right to prejudice people.Everyone makes mistakes because of ignorance, we become better by learning.

yes, you are right, the Karabakh khanate was a Caucasian khanate, but this does not contradict with the information that the ruling dynasty was ethnic linguistic azerbaijani and the majority of the population was azerbaijani. Many academicians also refer to this khanate as the Azerbaijani khanate, not surprising the fact that it is a Caucasian khanate. If your problem was that there were no commas between them, you could have added a comma instead of deleting them.

Many valuable scholars such as Tadeusz Swietochowski use the term azerbaijani khanate when talking about this khanate. Likewise, I cited the source for this information. When such a popular description exists, why do we delete it completely instead of giving it as additional information? Something like"azerbaijani origin caucasian khanate" or "caucasian khanate(also known as azerbaijani khanate).

• • • I will emphasize one important point. I attribute this to your ignorance on the subject. Yes, the term azerbaijani was officially accepted by the azerbaijanian people in recent centuries. Dont forget that, it is seen as racism for Azerbaijani people that people from other nations interfere with the national decision of Azerbaijani people. we use the term people of color today, but different terms have been used in the past. but when we talk about historical people in the past, we use modern terms and respect people's right to define themselves. yes, azerbaijani denonym was not popular in Penahali Khan's time, but nowadays it is and the ethno-linguistic bond is not erased just because the political term has been changed.***

Please let's stop this unnecessary misunderstanding and this new enmity between us. let's develop wikipedia hand in hand as people who just don't exclude other people because of their ethnicity and you will definitely help me with editing. But let's not forget that we all may have mistakes that we are not aware of, mine and you too. I would be very happy if you review the term azerbaijani and your ideas in the article about the Karabakh khanate. Sending love and peace

X Leamsezadah (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not a dispute/disagreement but simply me stopping a user from pov editing. As for your question, based on this random report of me apparently being “anti-Azerbaijani” and this users editing history, I highly doubt they would be able to engage in such a discussion. HistoryofIran (talk)

I think both of you would have a hard time convincing people that that whether or not a Turkic Caucasian khanate located in what is modern-day Armenia and Azerbaijan should be called "Azerbaijani" or not is so clear-cut that a single edit in one direction or the other (there wasn't even a revert war!) is an obvious POV issue to the point where it would require immediate administrator intervention. Remember that even if a particular edit happens to be POV, that doesn't necessarily mean the intent behind it is WP:TENDENTIOUS - editors can introduce biases into articles inadvertently, especially if they're only familiar with some of the sources. You mentioned above that you felt Leamsezadah's sources were cherrypicked, so one useful approach would be to demonstrate this on talk by producing more and / or higher-quality sources that describe the topic differently. Besides, part of Leamsezadah's objection was that they provided a source and you didn't; providing sources of your own would answer that objection while narrowing down the locus of the dispute, and assuming you convinced them, including the sources in the article would then make it less likely that someone else comes across the article and repeats all this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources are already listed in the Khanates of the Caucasus article, and in a WP:OVERKILL manner a that. I would also highly advise OP to read WP:TLDR and WP:ASPERSIONS, calling me “ignorant” on this subject is quite rich coming from them, as they dont even know when “Azerbaijani” became an ethnonym whilst playing expert. Ill post sources for that when I’m home, though its already mentioned in various Wiki articles, including Azerbaijan… HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, you're repeating this again. When the azerbaijani ethnonym is formalized by azerbaijanis is an internal matter of a nation, modern language is used in modern history. It is pointless and pointless to enter this subject anyway. When we can only discuss the Karabakh khanate, why are we talking about the topic which has very sensitive racist boundaries? It is not even our topic. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That made no sense. If you think this is too much of a sensitive topic, then you shouldn't have kept talking about it, let alone randomly reported me. Anyways, gimme a sec, I'll debunk what I can be bothered to debunk of your WP:TLDR comment in a sec. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I requested a review on the removal of the sourced term azerbaijani in the article, it is not about the necessity of calling Muslim Turkic people "azerbaijani" or not, who spoke the language that is now called azerbaijani in the Caucasus. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

you also claim that I attacked the definition of "Caucasian khanate", although I have no problem with this definition. Adding additional sourced information to the article does not mean rejecting any relevant information.

Even the article "Caucasian Khanates" itself contains the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Even in this regard, there is no contradiction. If both azerbaijani and caucasian terms are written in the article, on the contrary, it will add neutrality to the article and both terms are terms with available sources. At the same time, these two terms are not contradictory terms. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"I certainly did not call you racist. but I noted that articles about azerbaijan often contain vandalism and bias. this is also true for articles on Armenia(by nationalist turkish and azerbaijanis). That's why I asked to be checked."
That's quite astute of you, you did not call me racist; I never said that. I said that you accused me of being "biased" and "anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing", which you did here [10]. Also, you're not dealing with children here, no need to beat around the bush with your comment(s), it's clear that you are indicating that I have bias/pov issues, which is again, rich coming from you.

"Even the article "Caucasian Khanates" itself contains the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Even in this regard, there is no contradiction. If both azerbaijani and caucasian terms are written in the article, on the contrary, it will add neutrality to the article and both terms are terms with available sources. At the same time, these two terms are not contradictory terms."
Are we reading the same article? [11] It also says "Iranian khanate" and "Persian khanate" with tons of sources, so why does that get to be omitted? Because it doesn't fit your pov - and so I fail to see how this is the most neutral decision, choosing one side over the other that is. In fact, I'm pretty sure Western WP:RS uses "Iranian/Persian khanate" the most (WP:COMMON NAME), but I don't really care, at least not now; If I have to keep getting pestered by constant nonsense like this, that might change.

"Everyone makes mistakes because of ignorance, we become better by learning." / "I will emphasize one important point. I attribute this to your ignorance on the subject."
The ignorant one is you, do your homework before you start patronizing;

This is directly taken from LouisAragon's comment at the recent discussion at Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi, I'm sure I have a lot more sources in my own little library if need be;

• "Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914"'. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
• "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
• "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
• "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
• "Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): 37

"but when we talk about historical people in the past, we use modern terms and respect people's right to define themselves."
...Except that the Azerbaijanis weren't an historical people back then, barely having an ethnic identity per the sources above. And according to whom? Which WP:RS says that?

"Dont forget that, it is seen as racism for Azerbaijani people that people from other nations interfere with the national decision of Azerbaijani people"
Not the Azerbaijani people, just you - you don't get to speak for every Azerbaijani about this. I edit in what article I see fit, you don't get to judge me for that. And if we were to use that logic, you should be careful with editing in this topic, as the Azerbaijanis didnt exist back then.

I'm only in my early 20s, and already growing gray hair from this. People need to realize that AA3 is never going to find peace as long as we're not observant on these type of topics [12] [13] [14] which brings birth to issues like these. I got called "anti Azerbaijani" and "biased" for merely reverting OP, I'm probably gonna get called "ultra-racist" or something like that for this. This is hopefully my last comment. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Are we reading the same article? [28] It also says "Iranian khanate" and "Persian khanate" with tons of sources, so why does that get to be omitted? Because it doesn't fit your pov - and so I fail to see how this is the most neutral decision, choosing one side over the other that is. In fact, I'm pretty sure Western WP:RS uses "Iranian/Persian khanate" the most (WP:COMMON NAME), but I don't really care, at least not now; If I have to keep getting pestered by constant nonsense like this, that might change."

What does this have to do with me? I had resources related to the term azerbaijan khanate, I added it. this is not an argument. I dont possess every source all over the world, nobody posseses Leamsezadah (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Horrible excuse, did you stop reading Khanates of the Caucasus at the part in which it said "Azerbaijani khanate"...? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to add all the information. I wanted to add and add the sources of the part related to the Azerbaijani khanate, I have no obligation to add the others. I guess I'm not superman, the savior of the wikipedia articles lol. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see, you apparently need to be superman to read a single line and then self-reflect if your addition is going to be neutral or not. How about not adding either and letting it stay like it already was? You know.. the most neutral decision? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

why would this be the most neutral option when there are loads of resources for the other definition as well? your personal preference? there are many sources use "Caucasian khanate" for Karabakh khanate and also many sources use "Azerbaijani khanate" for Karabakh khanate.

add if you have enough resources for others, but you can't eliminate a term with valuable resources just because it doesn't fit your own thinking.

There are many valuable sources that call the Karabakh khanate the azerbaijani khanate and therefore should be found in the article. If you want to add other terms, provide enough sources about the Karabakh khanate and add them, this's none of my business. Leamsezadah (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh... this is the last time I'm repeating myself; The name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus" or "Khanates of Azerbaijan", thus I see no problem keeping in line with the name of the article, that is calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Caucasian Khanate". Moreover, calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate" is also not neutral as various WP:RS not only attest to the usage of "Khanates of the Caucasus/Caucasian khanates", but especially to the usage of "Iranian/Persian khanate" as well. And do I even need to explain that calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani or Iranian/Persian Caucasian khanate" in the lede is silly? Moreover, using "Azerbaijani" becomes even worse when the ethnonym didn't even exist back then as I demonstrated. I stand by my proposal to indef or at least topic-ban Leamsezadah from every topic related to WP:Azerbaijan, as they're clearly not able to edit neutrally in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you want someone to be banned just because you disagree? wikipedia is not your private property.

i again say i do not care about the name of caucasian khanates article, we are talking about Karabakh khanate and "azerbaijani" term is the addition information to article with source. If you want to distinguish it from caucasian khanate just use "," Leamsezadah (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? I said I supported to a indef block/topic-ban because of your non-neutral behaviour. As for your other comment, it's clear that you did not understood what I said either and that you are not satisfied until you have forced the word "Azerbaijani" into that article, i.e. WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• This report is too lengthy and convoluted to parse. Maybe try WP:AE where word/diff limits are mandatory, thus forcing you both to be concise. El_C 01:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the entire massive walls of text above concern these edits - specifically one two-part edit changing a single word in the lead and short description, and one two-part edit reverting it. After that one revert they came straight here, with no discussion on talk or anything else. There's nothing here and they need to take this to Talk:Karabakh Khanate, not WP:AE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The convolution is mainly due OPs walls of texts, which I tried to address as concise as possible. Though I probably should have stopped replying to them after that, meh. It should have indeed not been taken here, and I'm definitely not gonna go for round 2 with this user at Talk:Karabakh Khanate, as they clearly have POV issues - something I was hoping would get addressed here. Next time I will be the one reporting them, to WP:ANI that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone needs assistance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently, this guy needs assistance, and he's asking me to request it because he... can't?

BillClinternet (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIV Backlogged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apologies if this isn't appropriate, however AIV currently seems to have a massive backlog going back to 6:15 AM this morning (central timezone which I have set as what times should be displayed as). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf - 6.15 central would be about 11.15 UTC, I believe. The current queue has been resolved, but looking over the day's logs, it never seems to go above 7-8 with a 5 hour or so backlog. That should not be viewed as a "massive backlog", even if it isn't ideal (more for the time than the length). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah alright, sorry about that. It probably just seemed larger than it actually was due to all the bot reports. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spammer from ru.wiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SSDlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spammer from ru.wikipedia who try to add different external links in articles and promote insignificant peoples. [15] blocked on ru.wiki. Кронас (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at CentralAuth, they've also spammed be-, de-, fi-, fr-, and nl-wiki. I have reported them to m:SRG. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

And I've blocked them here for spamming. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revision blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A certain user by the name of "Flask" has taken Wikipedia page "Zelda Sayre" virtually hostage by refusing to allow for meaningful edits that seek precision and accuracy. "Flask" is repeatedly hostile in comments regarding revisions made by others, yet takes offense for a disingenuous revision of theirs being referred to as such and believes users should assume their particular revisions to be made in good faith and threatens them with violations. Rather than contribute to a page that is reflective of sharing coherent, accurate, descriptive information in supporting detail, it is my conclusion that Flask seems to have taken ownership of this page by sharing both incomplete and cherrypicked ideas and quotes about Zelda Sayre in order to cast this figure in a negative light, thereby exhibiting intolerance for corrections and revisions. While Flask makes repeated claims in comments about their painstaking efforts at scholarly work, the article is extremely lengthy, wordy, and is full of incoherency, redundancy, patchwork sentences, and negative slants in tone and word choice. Because of Flask's bias, quotes from reliable sources that could be used meaningfully, are taken out of context and presented in a fashion that maligns Sayre. They are also not cohesively placed as part of a coherent paragraph. The goal in every Wikipedia should be to reflect articles of encyclopedic quality with high caliber writing and an aim toward delivering information in an unbiased way, without the intent to praise or malign any figure in an article. 24.162.33.222 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Article in question is Zelda Fitzgerald. I see nothing wrong with Flask's edits. They invited you to discuss in one of their edit summaries, which is in keeping with WP:BRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP is urged to log in, and to hash this out on the talk page. The IP is also encouraged to be much. less. wordy. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.