Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 77

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Good-faith copyvios

Patti Negri needs to be deleted for copying IMDB. And I've gone ahead and redacted the problematic parts Brandy Robinson per this copyvio report.⸺(Random)staplers 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by @MathXplore Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile

Requesting protection due to persistent vandalism. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme:

Not done The rule is that protection is considered when there is so much vandalism that it's hard to keep up with. The most recent edits to the page don't show that level: in the last few months, there haven't been more than two edits in a day. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 20th copyvios

Rev-delete Special:Permalink/9715442. It's straight copying phrases from Britannica.⸺(Random)staplers 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already Done MathXplore (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hourman. Copies https://scifimafia.com/dc-developing-hourman-series-to-join-arrow-and-flash-on-the-cw/ IP is blocked.⸺(Random)staplers 20:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already Done MathXplore (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

special:diff/9709829

Some sentences are reworded from those in the references but they still look similar. Should this revision be deleted? Or should we revert this edit as not simple? MathXplore (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad changes

These users keep making bad changes from an IP range:

Special:Contributions/2A02:3037::/32

They keep doing things like copying paragraphs that were already written. Also they have been insulting other users. 2601:644:9083:5730:E8C0:7AE0:6C02:F11D (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin comment - I've reverted all of their edits, Not sure what they're trying to achieve but either way support blocking, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! 2601:644:9083:5730:E8C0:7AE0:6C02:F11D (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done 2nd block started. MathXplore (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible RevDel

Do the edits by Special:Contribs/197.211.59.22 qualify for RevDel? 2601:644:9083:5730:294A:5DB7:96CE:3220 (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, they seem pretty bad to me, but they don't seem to meet the constraints for RevDel. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 04:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just advertising, I guess Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 02:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMarioLogan

Does this meet QD G4? MathXplore (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) Maybe, Generally unreliable sources in article. Fails WP:GNG Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-based disruption

Some articles need protection.

This might appear somewhat extensive but the scale of the sock network and its disruptions are well known and need further protection and the extensive IP socking can be seen in each of them. Alan Charlotte (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: User blocked, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. MathXplore (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: User locked per xwiki issues. MathXplore (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ponyo

I want to remove protection for User talk:Ponyo, after two years without vandalism. 2001:4452:1B2:1F00:E97A:1325:6729:8376 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only Ponyo can request that. If you are Ponyo, log into your account and make the request again. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to discuss Ponyo as an IP user, for reporting issues on Wikipedia. 2001:4452:1B2:1F00:499:76A8:B39A:425 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are blocked on enwiki, these cannot be user:Ponyo. MathXplore (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

188.77.92.171

Special:Contribs/188.77.92.171. They seem to be making bad pages, but I haven't checked all of their edits. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done MathXplore (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almal Real Estate Development

Almal Real Estate Development was closed as soft delete twice, so I don't know what to do, but Almal is the same topic. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. MathXplore (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to special:permalink/9733375#Almal_Real_Estate_Development_accounts, I guess the next creation will be handled via QD G5. MathXplore (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Rogers Neighborhood

I would like to request semi-protection for the page "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" due to ongoing vandalism. The page has been edited one time with false information, and I have reverted it to its original position. I believe that protection is necessary to maintain its integrity. Thank you. ~~~~ FaterPepper (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FaterPepper, we only protect articles where the amount of vandalism is becoming hard to keep up with. There have only been seven edits in 2024 and only two of those have been vandalism. Therefore, this is

Not done. Please keep the article on your watchlist, as I have done, to keep an eye out for any vandalism that may occur to the article. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Steven Crowder

Steven Crowder ought to be semi-protected. People keep adding offensive allegations without valid sources. It's the same thing that occurred almost a year ago here. 2601:644:9083:5730:E55A:ED02:6645:89B6 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The rule is that we semi-protect if there is so much vandalism that it is hard to keep up with. The article has had only 6 edits this month, and only 3 were vandalism. That doesn't meet the threshold. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 27th copyvios

Rev-delete Special:Permalink/9729160 for copying https://auralcrave.com/en/2024/08/16/lady-gagabruno-mars-die-with-a-smile-the-lyrics-meaning/
Delete Eben Byers for copying https://www.ranker.com/list/story-of-eben-byers-radiation-poisoning/cleo-egnal ⸺(Random)staplers 17:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Hi, Could someone move Hasselt, Belgium to Hasselt please per EN, Thanks, Warm Regard's, –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ferien (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ferien very much appreciated :), Thanks, Warm Regards –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got blocked on Wikipedia proper

Essentially what the title says. Was falsely accused of sockpuppetry and banned on Wikipedia proper due to a user who just so happened to have similar interests and a location to my own. I'm just hoping this won't effect my account on the Simple English Wikipedia at all. Both sites are separate entities, but I just want to make sure. The user who they falsely accused me for sockpuppeting doesn't seem to have a Simple English Wiki account if that's of any importance. Carnivore82 (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we have WP:ONESTRIKE. MathXplore (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. I've actually been on Simple English Wiki much longer than Wikipedia proper. This site's adminis, such as you, are efficient and do your jobs well, far better than those on Wikipedia, so you earn my seal of approval. Have a good rest of your day my friend. Carnivore82 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I have not checked every part of the archives, and I'm not sure if this project has discussed WP:ONESTRIKE when the original block is disputed. Other admins here may have different viewpoints. MathXplore (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offline landing page

Hi there, I've created Wikipedia:offline as an alternative landing page to be grabbed by the Kiwix scraper. It is a simplified version without external links or seasonal content and that caters to users without internet access (it's also been a long-time request, so apologies to whoever it is that asked in the first place). Nothing to do here (except maybe keep an eye on it), but I figured I should give you folks a heads up in case anyone wonders :-) The other Kiwix guy (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other Kiwix guy, do you know how often the Kiwix scraper grabs that landing page? Would it be worth semi-protecting that page to prevent it accidentally scraping a landing page with vandalism? --Ferien (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is set to do it once a month. We've had it semi-protected on a couple of wikis but usually people needing offline access do not go online too often (and if they do certainly won't vandalize a page they need). Do as you see fit. Thanks! The other Kiwix guy (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass delete/nuke

Please mass delete all the pages created by Special:Contribs/74.219.176.234. 2601:644:9083:5730:C439:AEC:F243:46E8 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cyber.Eyes.2005, in the event you come across this editor, or any editor who happens to create tons of bad pages, it's usually easier to request a nuke here or on VIP instead of QDing them individually. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 09:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed for "poverty"

To My Grandchildren

There were self-reliant, very independent people who created their own country. They realized there were projects they could not do individually. They formed a government for those tasks such as raising an army. The government imposed a tax for these few purposes.

Well-meaning people saw that not all people were cared for by their families, which was the custom. So, tax money was allocated for these people who were in poverty.

Poverty was defined by the government as one’s money income. This did not include the tax money (benefits) allocated to these people. If these benefits were included in money income many of the beneficiaries would be wealthy, living off their neighbors’ tax monies. These government monies became very popular, especially by the recipients, but also by well-meaning and some self-serving groups. This caused these money allocations to expand tremendously.

Then the government could not collect enough taxes to pay for these allocations to people “ in poverty” and for other items for which the government was not formed. So, the government began borrowing money to pay for these. They borrowed more money than they could repay, so they just paid the interest on the loans. The lenders were not satisfied and demanded the money be repaid. Foreclosures was the only option. That ended the country formed by the self-reliant, independent people.

Will you stand with me on the broad shoulders of young soldiers, whos’ bodies were cut in-half by machine gun fire on the beaches of Normandy while screaming “mommy”, and save this country by returning our government to which it was originally formed.

2600:1702:1390:1AD0:5DAB:21AC:C1DC:543C (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, the events you refer to have been 75-80 years ago. If you find someone who was present then and who is still alive, they will likely be close to 100 years old. Poverty is a global problem, even after the second world war. So in all concreteness, what is it that you are asking admins of this Wikipedia? Eptalon (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen K. James‎

It seems that someone is repeatedly removing the quick deletion tag from Praveen K. James‎ without providing any valid reason. Previously, this page was created under the name "Praveen Kenneth." Symonds Gerother (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted, CU requested (Special:Diff/9734340). MathXplore (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP creating empty talkpages

Hi, Could someone delete the talkpages and block 82.132.185.207 please?, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was some time ago on 91.235.65.22 which is still blocked for 3 years, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by MathXplore - Thanks MathXplore much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Kid"

This might relate to a goat or to a human child. Hence it is not good as a title. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better as a disambiguation page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Auntof6@Macdonald-ross Can you check? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about Kids Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 2

Hi, Could someone move CD to CD (disambiguation) please as per EN?, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

~~Thank you CE much appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Still pending - Cyber.Eyes.2005 had just coypasted the pages from one to the other - Hardly helpful, If any admin could move it that would be greatly appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010:

Done without redirect. I assume you're going to make CD a redirect to Compact disk? If so, please check all links to CD to make sure that's what's intended. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Auntof6, Brilliant thank you so much, Yep I'll redirect to compact disc and will check all links (I do this anyway with these just to make sure all is okay and that these go to where there supposed to redirect too), Thanks again Aunt it's greatly appreciated, Many Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artistsportal

User:Artistsportal – promotional account. 2601:644:9083:5730:51E0:BA3C:C778:148 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, reports should go to WP:Vandalism in Progress.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts as vandalism. 2601:644:9083:5730:51E0:BA3C:C778:148 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh "Vandalism in Progress" is kinda misleading as we report all violations of rules there not just vandalism.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for bad user name. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of User talk:Kamen rider saber

Since someone has been incessantly commenting on this page for months, stating that it's their original account, could we have it protected? Regards, Kurnahusa (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurnahusa: We usually protect pages only when there is a level of vandalism that is hard to keep up with. That's not the case here. There have been only 4 edits this month, and 2 of those were to revert the other 2. Before that, the next most recent edits were back in June, during which month there were only 2 edits, the second being to undo the first. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Drmies went ahead and protected the enwiki talk page a while back, since it’s been an ongoing problem for 2 years now. But I guess since this wiki is smaller, vandalism is easier to spot and revert. Kurnahusa (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LordBirdWord citing their own, very much not a reliable source

The article has now been deleted, but if you look at the deletion discussion you will see that LordBirdWord attempted to source an article by repeatedly citing "GeorgeMicro News". First off, anyone with even an extremely basic understanding of what a reliable source is can see that George Micro News is a personal blog, the site itself makes it extremely clear that it is not a professional news source of any kind. Their talk pages history shows that this has been brought before, and that they have repeatedly tried to use this site as a source, and several of their articles about extreme-fringe politicians have been deleted.

Secondly, we can see from the description of this image on Commons that LordBirdWord, is Goerge Micro.

Additionally, this user is blocked on en.wp for socking and their uploads at Commons have almost all been deleted because they lied about creating most of them.

Given all of this, I have to wonder if this user is competent/honest enough to even be editing here. I realize some of this was not here on Simple, but the way I even became aware of this was looking at images on Commons that were clearly not free, that were uploaded by this user and used here on Simple. Basically this is a cross-wiki issue with this user. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: AN-notice sent (Special:Diff/9740095). MathXplore (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios for September 3rd

Battle of Haldighati needs to be deleted for copying https://generalnote.com/indian-history/akbar ⸺(Random)staplers 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin comment). Just a quick reminder that WP:G12 exists for deletion of articles that are copyright violations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomstaplers: Yes, please do a QD request. It's helpful if you indicate the URL that was copied from with the request. Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza-Jadidi‎

A QD A4 case. Since, the user is persistently removing the QD templates, shifting the deletion request here. Related: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Alireza-Jadidi accounts. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Ben Stiller‎

I'd like to request an auto-protection on this article, I checked the history and it seems like this article is the target of a bunch of vandalism over 2 months. RiggedMint 16:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for 1 month, let's see if they go away. fr33k man 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios for September 4th

Rev-delete Special:Diff/9749232 for copying https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/collections/art
Rev-delete Broadcasting House for copying https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/collections/art (and the associated IP)
BBC News (TV channel), BBC World Service, actually, probably everything from the socks and associated IPs need to be rev-deleted.⸺(Random)staplers 17:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done fr33k man 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

There is an IP making death threats in his/her unblock request. 🪐●Hau meon 20:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the unblock request is rejected, and talk page access is removed from the whole range. MathXplore (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Talk IP

This IP, whom I presume had an account and got banned, sent emails to the WMF foundation. When they didn't arrive, he went to Simple talk, when I think his IP got banned. So then he started proxying and changing IP's completely on every two or three edits. Then he deleted his original post, where everyone was telling to stop block evading, and he created another and is still IP hopping. His recent ones are:

Can you try to block his ISP or something like that? 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stewards have globally blocked so no action is required. fr33k man 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 18:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haumeon Just a note that they are proxies. If any Ip says anything similar, just globally report them on meta for being a proxy. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic sockpuppeteer

Cyber.Eyes.2005 is a chronic sockpuppeteer whose extensive sock network was active on enwiki and Commons before being detected and blocked last year. The network has promoted falsehoods, dubious POV, anachronisms and outright hoaxes, which I was surprise to find extant on simplewiki.

An extensive compilation of the networks disruptions on enwiki can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cyber.Eyes.2005, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cyber.Eyes.2005.

This sockpuppeteer should be blocked (surprisingly he has been granted patroller and rollbacker rights after finding refuge here) and a CU should reveal further shenanigans.

Articles have been created by the sockpuppeteer in the same vein here on simplewiki and ought to be deleted (reference hoaxing is a given since none of them support the stated assertions, the same reason which ticked off investigations at enwiki): Middle kingdoms of Pakistan, List of Pakistani deities, Medieval Pakistan, India naming dispute, Names of Pakistan, Ancient Pakistan. Dubious anachronistic POV categories (which also need be deleted): Category:Religions originating in Pakistan, Category:Language families of Pakistan, Category:Medieval Pakistan, Category:Pakistani monarchs, Category:13th century in Pakistan, Category:16th century in Pakistan, Category:17th century in Pakistan, Category:18th century in Pakistan. (This is not counting the numerous other already extant pages which have been disrupted with similar issues.) Gotitbro (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONESTRIKE, she is allowed here. She has done nothing wrong. I myself have been blocked on enwiki, but since I did not do anything wrong here, it makes no difference. I don't see anything wrong with the articles either. Her contributions have helped the wiki, not made it worse. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 18:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the "anachronisms" are not so because Pakistan was still called Pakistan before it was a country. They aren't POV cats either. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 18:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply untrue (Pakistan is a neologism) and the cats are POV/OR because these terms are non-existent in literature. Gotitbro (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean they are POV! And even if so, making a few good faith categories with wrong names does not qualify as vandalism or anything that would get her blocked! 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. She should be allowed to stay. I was a vandalist on enwiki, and I have done nearly nothing wrong here, so i'm fine. Me and her have only helped, and if I can stay, she can stay too. MidTV wrote this message. (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too.

Also, write ~~~~ at the end of your message. That makes your signature, or just your name. Like this one: 🪐●Hau meon 17:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, mine is customized to say that. MidTV wrote this message. (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool! 🪐●Hau meon 16:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro We actually had a few people last year try and get a few ex-sockpuppeters from enwiki blocked here. I don't like them. Cyber has done nothing wrong, the articles are fine, and the categories might be related to just the indian sub-continent in general. There's no evidence of disruption and sockpuppeting by her here. RiggedMint 18:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simplewiki is the place of second chances, it isn't the place where an ex-whatever gets finally blocked (unless they actually do something disruptive to our wiki). RiggedMint 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does IP socking count [1]? The issue is not limited to sockpuppeteering, the broader concerns are of outright falsehoods being purveyed on a wiki project. Gotitbro (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it matter? The IP is clearly not active, and she is not sockpuppeting anymore? RiggedMint 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined fr33k man 18:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit, Vedic period, Mahabharata, Rigveda, Chandragupta Maurya, Chanakya are only some of the articles where the insertion of dubious POV is very visible. My concerns were only in interests of serious NPOV and disruption issues that have migrated onto simplewiki. If simplewiki wants to give way to second chances that is fine but doing that to also comporomise the integrity of the project should not be the way. Gotitbro (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? How is letting Cyber.Eyes.2005 keep improving the wiki going to compromise the integrity of the project? For example, the Sanskrit article is perfectly fine, except for one sentence at the end. It's inevitable: people will have some bias. You also have bias. Everyone does. A few mistakes made some time ago don't compromise the project's integrity! Plus, this discussion should be closed already, fr33kman refuses to block or ban Cyber.Eyes.2005 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 19:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles actually vastly improved the wiki, because they are common subjects that are searched up often. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 19:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t write a lengthy response here since I’ve already addressed these concerns multiple times in the past. Similar accusations were made when I first started contributing here. In short, I have not engaged in sockpuppetry, either through another account or IP address, and a CheckUser was conducted confirming this. My block on the English Wikipedia does not affect my contributions here (See: WP:ONESTRIKE). I’ve been granted Rollbacker and Patroller rights due to the community’s trust in me, based on my contributions over the past year. Regarding the categories, they are not POV. They do not claim that the name "Pakistan" existed before the country’s formation; rather, they reflect the history of the "land of Pakistan," as valid as en:Category:Ancient Slovakia. As for the articles you mentioned, any review by an editor will show that my edits are not POV. Each edit was supported by reliable source. Although the issue has been resolved, I’m responding here to avoid future misunderstandings. If this situation arises again (Probably will), I'd just link to this thread. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 19:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The misrepresentation of these sources is what constitutes POV, the problem is in pushing and slanting articles in favor of a certain viewpoint including that of nomenclature. That South Asia related topics have been completely altered to that effect in merely the last few months is a testament to that, further witnessed by the articles listed above.

Problems arise due to the fact that the edits are indeed not conducive to an NPOV wiki environment. Even beyond the leniency granted to sockpuppeteers by simplewiki, this is a disrepute of its tenets. Gotitbro (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Not conducive to a NPOV wiki environment"

I see no problem with her edits. She is not pushing and slanting articles to a certain viewpoint any more than any other user would. They are perfectly neutral. First learn how to tell if something is POV before coming to the admins and wasting their time. 🪐●Hau meon 20:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gotitbro has only posted this because they clearly have some sort of axe to grind,~~

Gotitbro given your very first contributions here were to participate in RFDs and given you immediately knew the terminology used here I would say this account isn't your first so If I were you I'd withdraw this report and go back to editing,

I'm not sure what sparked this report after you disappeared for a month but nonetheless this random obsession stops now otherwise you're going to find yourself blocked, If you have a valid concern about a sock vandalising articles fine report away! - But creating baseless reports on people is not okay. I should also add Cyber has never been a problem and I'm going to assume they've never socked here either,

~~If you have a problem with an article go to WP:Simple talk and ask for the communities opinion. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)~~ striking out per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Cyber.Eyes.2005[reply]

@Gotitbro

If you are so sure about Cybereyes making promotional and POV articles, look at the todo list in her project. She is clearly very keen on making all Pakistani articles NPOV. 🪐●Hau meon 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have been active on enwiki for years now, would not have taken a few seconds to see that, than fly these ridiculous off the wall accusations. My edits here were obvious follow ups to sock reports from there. ANI, from what I know from at enwiki, is not limited to sock reports and reports of disruption can obviously be brought up.

When obvious fringe POV with everything in the history of South Asia being somehow solely related to "ancient Pakistan", edits which have been inserted only in the past few months, was noticed and from whom I remembered as a sock doing the same thing at enwiki and being blocked for it, I naturally brought this up here.

Rather than addressing any of these editing and content concerns, that some editors are choosing to attack me for a good faith report is very unfortunate. The recommendation of WP:Simple talk could have come without all that abrasiveness. Since this was broadly an editor issue, this was brought up here. Not adressing these issues is only going to undermine the trust on simplewiki. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack? Good faith report? These are truly baseless attacks from you, as of course if you've been so active you must know not to waste admin's time. I simply don't care anymore, keep attacking people left and right and disregarding Simple rules. Davey2010 was right. You have raised many red flags and randomly coming here to report a user who is perfectly fine is quite suspicious too. The admins will deal with this.

Haumeon out 🪐●Hau meon 21:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop hounding every reply of mine here. Gotitbro (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he warned doesn't mean you should ask for a block for him. I believe Cyber eyes has improved from his mistakes. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::Well I can only assume there was more to your socking/vandalism then there was Cyber's but we're not going to punish a long standing and good editor because you were blocked for the same mistakes. But that's the point there are no editing and content concerns if there were we'd investigate and do something about it.

Not adressing these issues is only going to undermine the trust on simplewiki. - Again there are no issues, It's not like Cyber is vandalising articles or is POV pushing and we're turning a blind eye - As far as I can see they're adequately sourcing and improving articles. This really is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC) striking out per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Cyber.Eyes.2005[reply]

I have never been blocked for socking, vandalism or POV concerns on any wiki, these are wild assumptions and accusations and I have no idea where these are coming from. Have you even looked at the damning enwiki SPI linked above.

You are not seeing a POVPUSH simply because you are unfamiliar with the case and the topics that are of concern, when a reader comes to simplewiki to see that almost every topic under South Asian history has been labelled anachronistically as being "ancient Pakistan/Pakistani", that is not an improvement [and clearly not what the sources that are being dropped in articles state (not that many of the sources are any better)], they are not going to turn again to simplewiki. Inserting such POV is not an improvement, other edits of the user should not take anything away from the NPOV issues listed here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not seeing a POVPUSH simply because you are unfamiliar with the case and the topics that are of concern

I have read all the neutral POV books I could find (I'm not just a planet, I'm a history geek) on this subject and none of then contradict Cyber's edits and articles. Same with a lot of the sources.

"Ancient Pakistan" is not anachronistic. You are overusing this term. All the books I can find referred to the area as ancient Pakistan, and more of the sources do than you think. As well as that, there are a lot of ancient South Asian empires that included Ancient Pakistan or the area. Those edits are improvements. They are not POVPUSHing anymore than you are in the articles you make.

And @fr33kman already said he wouldn't take action (based on these baseless attacks on Cyber).

We won't ban a longstanding user who has only helped the encyclopedia. 🪐●Hau meon 17:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Haumeon's above reply, I've cited some books/sources that refer to the region's history as "ancient Pakistan" or mention Pakistan in a historical/ancient context on Simple talk (Special:Diff/9752835). I also don’t believe the comments User:Gotitbro made against me were made in good faith, despite their claim. Comments like "gaming the system" in a reply to me and statements such as "Even beyond the leniency granted to sockpuppeteers by simplewiki, this is a disrepute of its tenets"—while clearly knowing I haven’t engaged in sockpuppetry here—are WP:ATTACK. They claim to have worked on Wikipedia for years but still don’t seem to understand that being blocked on one wiki (which happened years ago) doesn’t automatically mean I should be blocked on all wikis (Else they wouldn't have made this ANI report for me to be blocked). – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 12:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. He was inactive for years and then randomly popped up and starting accusing you and reverting all your edits. That's pretty suspicious.

Gaming the system

@Gotitbro, how is making good edits gaming the system? 🪐●Hau meon 16:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these "suspicions" have been addressed above; mainly active on enwiki, come here when following disruptions from there.

I would appreciate if you please stop pinging and hounding me. Gotitbro (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain peace, I say we ask the admins about this.

(This is their noticeboard, why don't they know?) 🪐●Hau meon 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Import updates request

Hi, can you update Module:External links/conf/Sports, please? Thank you :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Indigo

Done — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 11:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion/Salt/RFD close request

Hi, Could someone delete and permanently salt Beauty of the beat and close Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Beauty of the beat (3rd nomination) please?, Many thanks, warm regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios for September 6th

Special:Permalink/9754116 needs to be rev-deleted for copying https://blackthen.com/at-8-feet-8-in-the-tallest-african-american-on-the-planet-john-rogan-was-more-than-just-the-negro-giant/ ⸺(Random)staplers 00:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done MathXplore (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright - Leave the gate as you found it

I suspect that the article Leave the gate as you found it, created by Cactusisme, may be a copyright violation. The reason for my suspicion is that every sentence appears with the same wording on another webpage. The following sources match portions of the text:

12.190.177.187 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are getting at but I disagree that it is a copyright violation. The closest portion regards the stock water portion but this is a well-known rule of the country code. Whilst it is permissable to use very small portions of text from a copyrighted source I think in this case the simplewiki article could be rewritten in such a manner that doesn't directly copy the relevant sections and I'd advise the author to do just that. Our copyvio rules are in place to prevent regions of text from being violated, not part of a sentence of small portions of paragraphs

Thx for bringing this to our attention. fr33k man 15:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I'm not an expert on copyright, but in this case, every single sentence is exactly the same as a sentence in one of these sources (except for "UK", which was changed to "United Kingdom").

Of course, another possibility is that this text came from some non-copyrighted source (such as 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, or a public domain government publication). 12.190.177.187 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need more information. Cactusisme is an active and trusted user here and I'd be very surprised if a violation was intended. Let's see what they have to say first. fr33k man 16:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was probably wrong; it was probably written from the English Wikipedia article. Maybe the other webpages I found were copied from the English Wikipedia article. 12.190.177.187 (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 04:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I actually translated this page from En Wikipedia. So should this be brought up at EN first? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's really not my fault, the article was created more than 20 years ago so highly likely this is not copyright violation. Maybe you want to start a discussion at EN? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be wise. For what it's worth, Earwigs tool on the enwiki copyright doesn't raise too many alarms, but if it's on sources it doesn't read it wouldn't show up. Regardless, might be worth changing the wording somewhat on simple to avoid any issues here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. Thanks for your opinion!! Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk age for the version which I translated. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to extend block on User:VLodge2

I am an involved party so I can't act on it, so I am requesting for someone to take a 2nd look and extend the block duration for VLodge2 (possibly to indef, at least until the threats are withdrawn) due to persistent violations of WP:NLT - Special:Diff/9753982 in particular, as well as repeated claims of "defamation" allegedly being made against an article's subject. Chenzw Talk 01:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: CU requested (Special:Diff/9754372). MathXplore (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Frwiki CU has been contacted (fr:special:diff/218421429). MathXplore (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for all involved accounts. Please see fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d'utilisateurs/Requêtes/septembre_2024#JohnKessel2022,_VLodge2_-_7_septembre and m:special:permalink/27422277#(LWCU)_JohnKessel2022,_VLodge2,_Patricka-1999. Global locks requested. MathXplore (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now globally locked. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios for September 7th

Rev-delete Special:Diff/9755201. Nonsense copy-paste from http://hip.fhi360.org/file/14005/ETHIOPIA%20WOREDA%20RESOURCE%20GUIDE_final.pdf ⸺(Random)staplers 19:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done MathXplore (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Can you indef semi-protect my user page. Thanks Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 05:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And can someone delete User:Cactusisme/redwarnRules.json. I don't use red warn anymore. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 05:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done MathXplore (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore Can you delete, Module:Fallback Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done MathXplore (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfA+ archives

Currently, the format of our RfA+ (for RfA/B/C/dA/Os!) archives is a bit messy, with the average archive currently looking like Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive17. The successful and unsuccessful tables are of different formats, even though the contents can be exactly the same. There are also some inconsistencies in other parts of the table and names of RfOs. I'd like to make the following changes throughout all of the archives:

Change the standard of the Unsuccessful tables to that of the Successful tables: User | Date closed | Tally | Comment.
Where a request for bureaucratship/checkusership/oversightership/de-adminship is made, specify it in the comment as "(Un)successful ...ship" rather than specifying that in the User section.
Change all RfOs so they are "Requests for oversightership" as opposed to "Requests for oversightship".

Thoughts? Pinging @Chenzw, Djsasso, Enfcer, and Eptalon: as bureaucrats. --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. This is one of those maintenance and wikignome-y things that I would like to say should have been a no-brainer, but as a project we evidently haven't managed to find time to get around to doing them. Chenzw Talk 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good Eptalon (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! I knew this'd probably be uncontroversial but just didn't want to check I was missing any reasons as to why we might have done it in specific ways for certain things. I'll get along with this now. --Ferien (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD creation for Enzo Zelocchi

I tried to create an RfD for Enzo Zelocchi but the abuse filter blocked it. The wording should be the same wording I used on the page. 2607:F140:6000:816A:ED02:ED81:4C2:7E3E (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Enzo Zelocchi — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fehufanga. 2607:F140:6000:816A:ED02:ED81:4C2:7E3E (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Speedy Delation Tag on JTA International Investment Holding

Dear Admins, as the page JTA International Investment Holding has been tagged with speedy Delation with reason G2( Test Page), as The page is Notable not a Test Page. Kindly look into the matter, Thank you very much Zeroify (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions given on the article page to add the WAIT template and then say why it should not be deleted on the article's talk page (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JTA_International_Investment_Holding&action=edit&redlink=1). Ternera (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I did the same as per your instructions Zeroify (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: User is blocked. MathXplore (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Kobesh and Ruslan Saberov

Anastasia Kobesh and Ruslan Saberov is related to Ruslan Saberov, which was deleted under G5. 2607:F140:6000:816A:B00D:998:ECBC:5055 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, global lock requested. MathXplore (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: The author is locked. MathXplore (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:204.184.47.241

I welcome feedback about the actions around this page. Best regards. MathXplore (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the response is on key. It is important to be harsh with schools at times and force them to deal with the problem themselves. fr33k man 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just allow them to do what they want. The principal must take responsibility and ban the culprit fr33k man 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: Do you have opinions related to Special:Diff/9750643 and the threads after this? MathXplore (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats must be taken seriously. I'd take it to the stewards. fr33k man 02:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And WMF as well fr33k man 22:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does WMF mean? ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation. The legal owner of the wikis we all work at. fr33k man 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to block them then we must do so. fr33k man 02:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman the school IP address hasn't have it’s talk page access revoked on the main English Wikipedia, can you please get an administrator from the English Wikipedia to revoke their talk page access as soon as possible? ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to interfere with enwiki acfions. I don't expect them to tell us what th do. We just don't do it. fr33k man 22:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do their thing we do ours. fr33k man 22:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range should be globally locked for a long period of time, so that way students cannot change any Wikipedia (and to extension, any Wikimedia project) due to persistent vandalism used by that IP range, the same should apply to all IP ranges who are registered to other schools. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the principal should take responsibility, in my opinion, the stewards should take the responsibility to globally lock and ban the IP range and all other school IP ranges indefinitely. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that the IP should be globally locked due to being registered to a school. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A limited time frame should be implemented fr33k man 02:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, I feel like an indefinite block or ban on all school IP ranges would work, but since IP ranges rarely get indefinite blocks and bans, that may never happen. However, I was keeping track of the changes the IP range creates on the Simple English Wikipedia. I also received an indefinite ban on the English Wikipedia for vandalism too tho. But I am redeeming myself on this Wikipedia for a sooner eligibility for unblock requests than given by the administrators at the Simple English Wikipedia. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should take this conversation to the stewards. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already requested a global lock for this IP range at Steward requests/Global. No need to continue. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a second global block request on the same ip address but it explicitly tells the edits the ip address did on the simple English Wikipedia and the French Wikipedia along with stating cross-wiki vandalism. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 03:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImAWubbox1984 Sure, I see some cross-wiki vandalism but if your reason is that the IP address (range) belongs to a school, I can guarantee you that your request will be declined by any steward reviewing it (I typed this before seeing your SRG report and, as I expected, it was declined), because it is not policy to block IP addresses/ranges belonging to educational institutions. They are not open proxies and should not be treated as such. You could have at least reported the /24 range, because the user is active not only on that one address, but other addresses in that /24 range. If the IP address hasn't abused their talk page on enwiki, I see no reason to revoke it. It's entirely up to the enwiki admins to do so, and they don't usually take preemptive actions. Please just drop this and move on before this turns into a timesink. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed fr33k man 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really want to ban as few schools as we can fr33k man 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DG Hamlin RfD

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/DG Hamblin was scheduled to closed a week ago, but it seems to have never been on the RFD page. Batrachoseps (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the discussion on WP:RFD and extended the discussion term. MathXplore (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel and block IP request

Hi, Could someone go through 49.228.235.140's contribs and see if any need revdelling and also possibly block the IP please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP's been globally blocked, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ferien (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant thanks for your help @Ferien, Apologies for removing it no idea why I just assumed they weren't revdellable, Also thank you for the ping above it's greatly appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Block request

Hi, Could someone delete the talkpages 212.82.88.23 has created and block said IP please?, They've repeatedly been doing this under new IPs, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's seems pretty petty for creating talk pages? (Unless it's against our rules and guidelines.) RiggedMint 14:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RiggedMint See my reply below - this IP spends their time creating redirects and creating talkpages for no actual reason, Unless you're going to actually use the talkpage (for either attribution purposes or for discussion purposes) then there's no need to mass-create empty talkpages which is what this IP does, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The listed IPs (below), I don't think are very related much? From the contributions the fourth one mass-created redirects, and so did the third IP. The second one seems to be unrelated, the first one could be related to this IP. RiggedMint 14:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are all related, All 4 IPs below have created talkpages (which have been deleted) as well as created redirects which is exactly what the above IP has been doing, It's obvious to anyone this is the same person. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are in the same country, but are in different locations, I doubt they are related, they do share much of the same interests (pertaining to bangladesh), but it's likely they're different people (except 3 and 4). RiggedMint 14:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's how dynamic IPs or VPNs work - For instance if you were to track me for a month I would be in my home town (or close) one week and then London the next or some random place I've never even heard of, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree o whether they're related. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, they are not dynamic IPs. I checked and all the IPs are non-dynamic or residential (likely the latter) and so doesn't work with the basis that it's 'dynamic'. RiggedMint 18:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time to perform these actions and while they may be right to do at times, most times should just be ignored. fr33k man 22:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for a week. fr33k man 22:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Pages deleted. User not blocked because this specific IP has not been warned. I'll reconsider blocking if you point me to the other IPs that have been doing the same thing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Thanks for deleting, I've made reports here, here, here and here, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: All the reports except that first one were from a long time ago, at least from the viewpoint of whether to block an IP. Also, I can't consider the IPs to be related since the IP numbers aren't similar. I'm not going to block at this time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers not being the same is irrelevant ... most users outside the US have dynamic IPs - My IP pretty much changes weekly,

Anyway I disagree whole heartedly with you however having thought about it - once the vandal returns they'll probably be on a new IP anyway (like they have been the last 4 blocks) so I guess one could argue blocking wont achieve much anyway except potentially blocking a good editor from contributing here,

Thank you for deleting the talkpages, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use many tools rather than just IPs. CUs for instance can connect vastly different IPs based on XFF data, usage of useragents, and other things. I don't see a need for CU but wanted to say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Yes, ICMP changes IP addresses quickly that's when CU comes in handy. fr33k man 04:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of protection for Ragnhild Myklebust

Ragnhild Myklebust was originally a user sandbox and it was protected per user request. When it was moved to mainspace, the protection remained, but it should be un-protected, because no vandalism has affected that article. Batrachoseps (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my mistake, while moving Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can do anything about it; I think protection always transfers when a page is moved. Batrachoseps (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested deletion Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to delete it? It should just have the protection removed. Batrachoseps (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want it messing people up when they check the protection log. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deletd and recreated Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.

Batrachoseps (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber.Eyes.2005

I am writing again regarding this editor because I have reason to believe that the original range of issues that culminated in their de facto ban on EN is happening on this project as well. The case that I am bringing to this noticeboard is that this editor is engaged in a pattern of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations via anachronistic editing and misrepresentations of various things as Pakistani in origin (e.g. inventions and monarchs) on the basis that said things existed in the geographic area that is now modern-day Pakistan. The word "Pakistan" did not exist prior to the British's creation of the Dominion of Pakistan in the early 20th century. As far as I know, no historical sources reference the area by the "Pakistan" name prior to that time, and especially not in previous time eras.

I will note that many of the above claims that are not explicitly supported by reliable sources. I have reviewed some of those cited sources myself, and agree with Gotitbro's concerns brought up above and in the other discussion threads. Some of the added content even outright contradict what is on EN.

My assertion is that the current editing pattern has caused a non-trivial amount of damage to content integrity on this wiki in the form of huge amounts of article content that is seemingly cited by inline sources, but not actually supported by said sources. Re-review of these content additions is going to take a significant amount of time and effort.

Relevant prior discussions:

...and while my personal information is usually irrelevant in such a discussion, I want to preempt potential counterarguments by clarifying that I am neither Indian nor Pakistani, have no ties to them whatsoever, and therefore have no stake in this matter on nationalistic or ethnic grounds.

As additional background, article issues regarding India and Pakistan are a frequent source of en:WP:BATTLEGROUND editing on EN too, and are subjected to the contentious topics procedure (formerly discretionary sanctions) by ArbCom decision. See en:WP:ARBIP. Chenzw Talk 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from my side to some of the points raised above:

I wasn’t banned on EnWiki for violations of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or anything related to that as stated above. My initial block was due to edit warring with an editor on a completely unrelated topic, and later I was blocked for sockpuppetry (I regret it). I have never claimed or tried to prove that "Pakistan" or even the word itself existed before the country was created. My rationale for my edits is given in the relevant RFDs, Talks and ST discussions, which Chenzw has already linked for reference. Editors can review those for better context.

While we do follow EnWiki for rules that Simple doesn't have, does that also mean we have to follow their consensuses and specific edits? I don't think so. EnWiki isn’t a reliable source in itself, and it’s not like everything there is perfect. So, saying things like "Some of the added content even outright contradicts what is on EN" doesn’t seem like a convincing argument to me. En can have outdated, missing, or incorrect content—does that make Simple’s content "problematic" just because it contradicts EN?

This has been going on for a while now, with many of my contributions being reverted with the reasons being Non-RS sources or anachronistic content by User:Gotitbro. Sure, some of my sources may not be reliable, and that could be my mistake. But outright attacking isn’t the solution (Which has happened to me multiple times). That’s why we have WP:DISPUTE in place. If we can settle this issue properly once and for all, that would be ideal. I’ll let the editors and admins here judge the contributions to this wiki I've made in my time here. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 14:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I did not go into detail about your conduct at enwiki in the thread above as WP:ONESTRIKE was cited, I am now convinced that it has been wilfully violated and am even more concerned that you still have not fully come to terms about your problematic edits at enwiki or here (the exact same reason your unblock appeals at enwiki have been denied 5 times; this was despite the fact that you cited your alleged good conduct at simplewiki for your appeals, which was deemed to be false by the community on the basis of the same anachronistic/nationalistic POV issues that have been raised here, see en:User talk:Cyber.Eyes.2005.

This account of yours on enwiki was not banned for for WP:EDITWARring, but for being WP:NOTHERE and WP:DISRUPTIVE [2]. And the initial block stemmed from the same nationalistic POV edits that have taken place here (examples abound at [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]).

The evidence becomes even more damning when you consider the massive disruption and outright WP:HOAXing done by you through socks at enwiki (which has also filtered on simplewiki through this account) as seen at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive (the sockpuppeting might even go far beyond this main account to 2021[8]) i.e. inserting 'Pakistan' and the like into whatever may or may not be even remotely connected to it.

Some selected comments from the SPI:

Basically promoting Pakistan's role in Central Asian demography-related figures, and vice versa.[9]
More: trying to make it seem as if Uzbeks are a massive, native group to Pakistan, similar to earlier blocked socks.[10]

User:Nima Lhamo, which you have verified as your 'alt' here, was massively adding OR and other SYNTH material (scripts and other ethnically disruptive materia) to articles which is what lead to its discovery as a sock and an obvious four time unblock denial.[11].

Other nationalistic POV sock edits on enwiki which were basically paralleled here (paranthesis): [12] ([13]), [14] ([15]), [16] and [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (Gandhara art), [22] (Gandhara).

And that the edits fall squarely within WP:ARBIPA is substantiated by the fact that while the user appears to have no problem with their preferred nationalistic anachronisms such as "Ancient Pakistan" and the like, he has created numerous dubious articles like India naming dispute (there is no such actual dispute by the way [unlike Macedonia, Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan], the whole article being a SYNTH collection of disparate news articles and sources) and its dubious creation and the user's response was one of the reasons the latest unblock appeal was denied[23], the user also completely redirected the long standing Ancient India to India naming dispute. Other edits in the same veign include [24], [25] among others.

There was also an effort to legitimize the spurious article creations through DYK, purveying the same anachronistic POV. Here is a sampling [all of these are factually dubious or incorrect beyond the very obvious anachronism]:

"that the name 'India' was first used by the Greeks to refer specifically to the Lower Indus Valley in ancient Pakistan?" (the Greeks knew very well that India as they knew it extended beyond Sindh but never ventured beyond it until after Alexander; its original limited bearing is sought to justify the dispute article)
"that the name India comes from the Indus River, which is located mostly in Pakistan and is the national river of the country?" (the Indus originates in Tibet and passes through Indian-controlled territory, these facts clearly do not fit in well with the POV sought here)
"that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was against the use of the name India by the Republic of India, saying that it was misleading and would cause confusion?" (an entire dispute [India naming dispute] has been fabulated by the editor from a single miff by Jinnah)
"that the oldest recorded name of Ancient Pakistan is Meluhha, the Sumerian name for the Indus Valley?" (Meluhha has never been conclusively identified though is generally thought to refer to the Indus Valley Civilization, which wasn't limited to Pakistan)
"that the region of Gandhara in Pakistan is the second holy land of Buddhism, the first being Magadha in Nepal and India?" (Buddhism largely has no concept of designated holy lands, let alone first and second ones; I am not sure which poor sources are being used to again insert misleading info)
"that the Indus Valley civilization of Pakistan is among the four oldest civilisations in the world and also the earliest known urban culture of South Asia?" (as noted above IVC was never limited to Pakistan, and much like Mesopotamia isn't equivalent to Iraq, it isn't either)

Along with the outright falsification of sources to justify such DYKs and new articles and the numerous entries at List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries and with the outright denial of even a hint to accept misconduct, I think much like at enwiki, the user is NOTHERE. Simple Wiki would then not appear to be a chance at reform for past mistakes but another platform to replay their POV and disruptions. Gotitbro (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My block on EnWiki was declined a few times due to "procedural issues." So, interpreting that as "the exact same reason your unblock appeals at enwiki have been denied 5 times" doesn’t seem like a fair or good-faith interpretation to me. FYI, WP:NOTHERE also covers WP:EDITWAR, which is what led to my block on the en:Brokpa article.

You've linked examples of what you call my "POV edits." those were among my first contributions on Wikipedia. I’d encourage editors here to review them in context to see if they were really disruptive. The content I removed was unsourced—no single source mentions some Brokpas following Hinduism or some Baltis following Buddhism, so it was in line with policy to remove those claims. Yes, one of my edits did contain a typo ("rrrdrrrrfrrras"), which was unintentional and a mistake on my side. And while we're sharing comments from En, here's what an editor on SPI had to say about my edits (The same ones you've linked above)

When I saw the result of this SPI, I was at first relieved: 'Phew! One fewer overenthusiastic rookie to clean up after!'. But then I looked at the previous account, and how they got banned, and I frankly don't get it. So, Cyber.Eyes.2005 registers and account and makes 7 edits on 19 March. Some are improvements, some aren't, all are good-faith. What they needed at that stage was a welcome message thanking them for the copyediting but also explaining how wikipedia works, and especially the need for sourcing. What do they get? All their edits are reverted without explanation by Aman.kumar.goel, who then posts the very first message on that user talk page, which is a level-2 (?!) warning about unspecified disruptive behaviour. Cyber.Eyes.2005 then makes 8 more edits, predictably of the same overall level of good-faith and mixed CIR as the first batch, which earns them further unexplained blanket reverts and a level-3 warning by Aman Kumar Goel. On the following day, four more edit – again not well-executed, but all in good faith – and they get indeffed by Alexf per NOTHERE (?!).
Now that ship has sailed. This young person has walked away believing Wikipedia to be a place where reverts and blocks are dished out arbitrarily and where no explanations are given. Nothing we do will change that, and we're probably stuck with the prospect of returning socks. But really, guys, this could have been handled differently. Next time a new editor bungles it with an article, just try to help out first, alright? It's not a lot of effort to check if some part of an edit can be retained instead of blankly reverted, and it's not a lot of effort to post {{welcome}} or to leave a pointer to WP:RS.

The "selected comments" from the SPI investigation you quoted merely show similarities that editors noticed and do not imply that those edits were POV, as you've claimed. The edits themselves were good-faith improvements, not policy violations. Regarding the addition of the native script, how is that WP:SYNTH? This (...an obvious four time unblock denial.) seems like another attempt to suggest that my block requests were declined because of "my edits" rather than for sockpuppetry. The block requests were declined for procedural reasons, not the edits themselves.

The examples of so-called "nationalistic" edits you provided were properly sourced and not POV. They were reverted due to en:WP:BANREVERT, not because they were problematic. What you're doing here is synthesizing comments and edits to create a narrative, but they don't actually connect the way you're suggesting. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 04:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you non-chalantly treat sock disruption and still refuse to acknowledge the problematic edits is all that one needs to know (no simply operating socks is not what lead to your ban [ban not a block]), you were extensively disruptive there on articles about ethnic groups and whatever demography-related woo you were trying to PUSH all over with the Pakistan POV; your last comment shows an unwillingness to acknowledge this at all. I know Uanfala whose comment you have linked above, who was only assuming AGF, but if I was to ping him here and ask about your behaviour now [with the litany at SPI and the nonsense purveyed here along with a likely even longer socking record [26]] I am pretty sure he would reasses that comment (that is the very first comment at the SPI by the way, before you kept digging your hole deeper and deeper with your conduct at enwiki).

Nothing you say can be seen as truthful if you keep falsifying what is there for everyone to see. WP:NOTHERE is an elevated form of disruption than WP:EDITWAR and you would know it. Coming to your 'first' edits (unlikely [27]), the refs shown in the diffs that you claim did not contain the info you removed, do and did [28], [29], [30].

Your socks were POVPUSHing the same nationalist viewpoints you have been here and were reverted for the same, these are not BANRVERTS [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Nima Lhamo, your sock, was adding unattested OR scripts [Tibetic scripts are almost nowhere used in Pakistan and the proper names/terms in them which were being inserted were completely made up by you] and SYNTH material all over (those who had to cleanup after would know). The reference to "four time unblock denial" was that it was from a disruptive sock who would obviously be denied those appeals and that an admittance of the obvious socking never came until much later.

Since you seem to fixate on the fact that you never abused beyond socking (oxymoron), the reasons/comments declining your appeals obviously never found these convincing despite your protestations (en:User talk:Cyber.Eyes.2005), even those considering a leeway saw enough South Asia-related disruption to warrant a topic ban:

I concur with Aman.kumar.goel that you shouldn't be unblocked without a topic ban. It would not be forever, but we'll need to see what edits you make in other areas first. (331dot)
Note to Cyber Eyes, and any reiewing admins: this account isn't just CU-blocked, it is banned per WP:3X. No individual checkuser or other administrator can accept an unblock request, it would need to be made by the community via a consensus at WP:AN. ... Daniel Case I've personally spent too much of my volunteer time chasing down socks of this particular LTA to be motivated to spend any in copying their unblock request to AN. You are at liberty to do so if you choose to; if you do, I'd be grateful for a ping, I have some comments I would want to make with regards to the request. (Girth Summit)
Saying in effect "I agree to a topic ban but I don't think I need to and I'm only doing it to get unblocked" is unlikely to be persuasive. (331dot)

From en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#Unblock request by Cyber.Eyes.2005 (26 October 2023):

Oppose, at this time. I'm generally in favour of second chances, but let's take a look at their history. The Cyber.Eyes.2005 account did not make many edits before getting blocked, but amongst them were this edit, which looks like vandalism but could just have been an accident, and then this reinstatement of the garbled string of characters after Cluebot reverted them. So far, fine, just a newby mistake, but they were already using a sock (Shayyan Behzad) to edit war at various articles (documented at the original SPI report). Now, they were new, but I don't buy it when people say 'I didn't know it wasn't allowed' in circumstances like that. Dishonesty is thought of as immoral in all cultures that I'm aware of. I do not accept that anyone needs to consult a policy document to work out that pretending to be two different people in order to win an edit war is inherently dishonest. I also reject their assertion that everything they have done has been 'in good faith' - using multiple accounts to try to win arguments is an inherently bad faith action. Since their block, their history has been that of someone who just cannot abide by the rules - they have persistently created socks (28 tagged as confirmed, 2 as suspected, who knows how many more that didn't get tagged), all returning to the same articles trying to force their edits in, while fully aware that they were contested. And while they have been doing all this, they have wasted countless hours of contributors' time in chasing down and blocking their socks. They have, as far as I can tell, waited out their 'standard offer' six months, but apart from that we have nothing to go on to establish whether they have changed their attitude towards collaborative editing. (Girth Summit) [as I was saying about the 'first' edits]
Weak support but only under appropriate unblock conditions. Namely, the topic ban from South Asia, sticking to "one account", and put on final warning conditions, where further disruption will merit blocks for any period of time or indefinitely. I haven't dug too deep to come to a definite conclusion though. (Awesome Aasim)
28 socks? With others possibly still out there? They have violated the trust of the community to the point that they need to remain blocked. WP:ROPE was already applied. 28 times. (RickinBaltimore)

en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive364#Block/ban appeal - Cyber.Eyes.2005 (28 August 2024):

But either way, that aggressive response, made by someone while they're appealing a community ban, was pretty self destructive. I still suspect most of the problem is in the IPA topic area, so I think there's still a decent chance they could productively edit other topic areas. (Floquenbeam) [IPA being the sanctioned India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or South Asia area on enwiki]
The diff from Lorstalking is very concerning; I think some topic-ban will be necessary with an unblock. (Walsh90210)
Per above. His disruption on Simple Wikipedia is simply too big to ignore. It refutes his claims of being "a constructive editor". (Dympies)
The battleground mentality as evident from their latest response is appalling. (Lorstalking)
Also, they socked several times a months for months, repeatedly being blocked; 'I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time', far from being a credible excuse, is an abnegation of personal responsibility. (NebY)
as someone who has contributed extensively in the area of the so-called "Hellenic Pakistan", a formulation which I don't believe has ever been used in scholarship, I oppose this unblock as a preventative measure. (AirshipJungleman29)

Seeing the same abusive behavior here, a South Asia topic ban becomes evident but considering the general attitude of 'I was only a sockpuppeteer and was never disruptive' despite evidence to the contrary here and at enwiki, a general ban is perhaps necessary. Gotitbro (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits, I come to the same conclusion that these edits are concerning.

What took my attention in particular was Talk:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries where Chenzw pointed out how the entry for Rain gauge on this article was copied directly from w:Rain gauge by Cyber.Eyes.2005, with instances of India simply being replaced with Pakistan. (Special:Diff/9765766#Tools and Mechanisms can be compared against w:Special:Diff/1235340698#History to confirm this.) I find issue even with Cyber.Eyes.2005's response to this comment. Cyber.Eyes.2005 pointed out how a source said The first known reference to rainfall measurement is in Arthashastra by Kautilya..., but even then, this is not equivalent to the first use of the rain gauge, and is not alone sufficient explanation for replacing instances of India with Pakistan. Even if it were the first known reference to rain gauges, this is still anachronistic editing.

I should note that these anachronistic edits on the English Wikipedia have been an issue since as early in 2022, where it was pointed out on the first sockpuppet investigation into Cyber.Eyes.2005 (w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive#28 April 2022). Continued abuse of multiple accounts in that area resulted in Cyber.Eyes.2005's three-strike sockpuppetry ban on the English Wikipedia. Yes, the ban was due to sockpuppetry, but the sockpuppetry was made evident by those issues. Her ban was also reviewed last month, yet declined because of the edits she made here.

Her responses to these issues have not been satisfactory, noticeably above where she is trying to deny this was an issue on the English Wikipedia. The situation I addressed regarding List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries is alone reason to block Cyber.Eyes.2005 under the one-strike rule. Unfortunately, as Chenzw notes above, it appears this editing pattern is extensive and will require a lot of time to review. As her articles are needing to be reviewed, I have revoked the patroller right from Cyber.Eyes.2005, as she should not have it even if she is unblocked for these issues.

Gotitbro, I'd also like to apologise for the way your concerns were seemingly dismissed by other members of the community. The responses and sockpuppet accusations, from Haumeon and Davey2010 in particular, towards you above are just not good enough. Your concerns evidently were not baseless and your significant contributions to enwiki were seemingly ignored, as sockpuppet accusations were thrown towards you for addressing issues with someone who genuinely did abuse multiple accounts. I'd like to thank you for bringing attention to these issues and continuing to point out these issues in spite of these accusations and attacks. --Ferien (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro, I too would like to sincerely and unreservedly apologise for my comments towards you and for dismissing your valid concerns, At that time It read in a way that you simply wanted this editor blocked for their EN behaviour and that you were also using "anachronistic editing" as an excuse. Unfortunately I didn't do my due diligence here and didn't check any further than that and I simply believed your accusations were baseless when they clearly wasn't, so I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for my comments and for the way I treated you and your complaint and too would like to thank you for not only bringing this to the admins attention but for also for your contributions to the Simple Wikipedia. Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. (I'm not as eloquent, so read the above comment by Davey. I am sorry for the same reason) 🪐●Hau meon 00:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me three Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro, I am really sorry for all I did during this debate. Like with Davey2010, it read to me like you wanted the user blocked for Enwiki behavior and you were using excuses. I didn't give a single thought to your concerns and flicked them away like flies. I acknowledge that at time I was hounding and tracking down your every reply, and I was being mean to a certain degree. In short, you could say I lost my head. This I deeply regret. I would to thank you for staying patient through this and for all you did for Simplewiki and Enwiki. I gave you a barnstar for this, check your user talk page.

And please, don't hold grudges. ~~I am sorry if it reached the point that you had to mute me.~~ 🪐●Hau meon●🪐 16:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting turn of events... RiggedMint 18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. 🪐●Hau meon●🪐 20:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an interesting turn of events as such, it's just that they ended up finally being caught for the edits they have been making for months. Cyber.Eyes.2005 combined their problematic edits with anti-vandalism and other edits, likely to (try to) keep their problematic edits under the radar. It was only when they tried to make their unban request that the enwiki community properly evaluated their activity and found the problematic edits over here, and that wasn't even a month ago. The fact this happened should have sent alarm bells ringing immediately considering they are on WP:ONESTRIKE as an enwiki-blocked user, which is why I highlighted the response to the original thread above. --Ferien (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so she was just doing bad edits all of the time on here? RiggedMint 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate cases have been focused on, because these discussions have been fragmented – there are two discussions here and one on ST. Ancient history of Pakistan, originally Ancient Pakistan which was a largely disputed term per the discussion on ST, was created by CE2005 back in April. List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries was the most blatant case of anachronistic editing, and the one I blocked for, that was in July. That shows this has been happening for a while at least. I haven't gone through all her edits, but weirdly it seems she went into the Pakistan area pretty much the moment she got here. That is something an editor in her case would usually steer clear of, considering the one-strike rule and the fact she was blocked for her edits in that area on enwiki. --Ferien (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised she wasn't found out when she applied for rollback and patroller. I hear that when you apply for rights your contributions are scrutinized. 🪐●Hau meon●🪐 21:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally gave Cyber.Eyes.2005 rollback so I should take responsibility for my actions here. In checking rollback, I considered her last request that was declined simply based on lack of experience and would be given later by that same admin on request, and her reverts looked reasonable. It was indeed a missed opportunity to give greater scrutiny to her edits considering the issue on enwiki. But for me, my biggest regret was my somewhat approving comment on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller/Archives/2024#User:Cyber.Eyes.2005 2, reviewing the reason for declining as opposed to the situation as a whole. If I had even checked her page creations, treating it as a new patroller request with no comments, I would have seen they are not simple enough for patroller and I would have declined it immediately. I regret it took this long to notice these issues and I should certainly take some blame for that. --Ferien (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this: we shouldn't choose a position on a contentious issue based on good rapport with the proponents of one side, but rather on our perspective on the issue itself. I also think it's better for us to avoid classifying editors as "good" or "bad", using wording like an editor "being found out", or assuming that anyone else is making an error if they agree with an editor who we find disruptive. Even if, for example, I think an editor is using sources inappropriately; even if they disregard warnings from other editors/admins; they could still be acting in good faith, because good faith means with an intention to improve Wikipedia, and no intention to mislead others. They could think the other editors are just wrong! But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned. Batrachoseps (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]