Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179

User:Dan27032 / disruptive editing and possible sock of User:McGurkus/User:Dcasey98

• Dan27032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• McGurkus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dcasey98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User @Dan27032 has been warned for repeated disruptive edits to race-related articles since 2022, and continues to make such edits. Prior discussions indicate no intentions to change their behaviour, as they believe they are WP:RGW. Diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.

They may be a sock of User:McGurkus/User:Dcasey98. McGurkus randomly came to their defence, as prior socks of this user have done elsewhere.

• January 2025 warning
• December 2024 warning
• March 2024 warning
• February 2022 warning
• January 2022 warning

I'll flag this on their talk page now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You make it sound as if the only reason I’ve created this account is for said “race related articles”. I have made 10x as many contributions in 10x as many topics, all of which my edits have been approved in.

Just because I believe the very obvious agenda on all the “race related” articles is greatly misinformative and hurts our ability as humans to appreciate one another doesn’t mean this is “just an alt” of the guy that agreed with me, and I’m pretty sure it was a different guy that thanked me for my edits.

I think it’s inevitable that when you push these claims about race being a myth without offering an explanation for our genetic differences as well as strongly promoting fringe beliefs about ethnic groups from completely different parts of the world being considered “black” that once in a while a few people are gonna see it and delete all of it on account of being baseless unfounded nonsense.

So admins do as you must but I am no more opinionated than these people coming down on me like a tonne of bricks for trying to change or undo whatever confirms their beliefs, none of them have provided anything of a counter argument each time. And you’ll see this is not all I care about Dan27032 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Also half of those warnings aren’t even race related so I don’t get the point of this if you’re exaggerating my track record of this Dan27032 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to correct myself: the January 2024 one isn't race-related, but it was disruptive (the actual diff appears to be vandalism rather than mere disruption, but for the sake of argument we'll go with what the warning said). The December 2024 warning is about race, as your reply confirms (it's not obvious from the warning). The rest are all obviously about race. The diffs are all also race-related (Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasian race, Southall Black Sisters, Black British people, etc). Lewisguile (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Dan27032, it's not about an individual editor's opinion or argument, it's what mainstream science and social science and what their consensus says. If you hold a belief that is contrary to what reliable secondary sources present as accurate, then you are banging your head against a wall. If you want to have your own blog, you can include whatever views you want but this is a referenced encyclopedia and our articles aren't based on the opinions of our editors or what they think is common sense. That's the one test of a true editor, can you work on an article presenting scientifically accepted points of view that might not agree with your own point of view? If you can not, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

In the case of the race related articles which I had already stopped my "disruptive editing" on not a single person has provided a counter argument or even an explanation for why this theory makes sense. Or they totally misunderstand the usage of the word and why it isn't "obsolete". It's not as if I'm some racist that actively sabotages efforts to prove how we are all equal, I already know we're all equal, I already know we're the exact same species.. But even despite that I think "colour blindness" does more harm than good. So when you're reading or trying to read articles on groups of people, where they originated from, how they managed to look the way they do, and what parts of the world they have populated... it is frankly irritating when you see these constant remarks telling you that you're somehow backwards for trying to appreciate these people as being in any way unique. But like I said despite even trying to meet them half way at times and edit the articles to just have a more neutral tone instead of repeatedly lecturing readers I have since stopped my "disruptive editing" on those articles.

Secondly I do not need to pour over the topic of why South Asians aren't black as much as I did the former, it simply isn't true. Not in the world of science or society, and if the belief is held in the latter it is without a doubt a fringle belief. I wasn't trying to delete any evidence of the "Southall Black Sisters", if they were a real organisation then they deserve their own article but to bend the definition of "black British" to include any non-white group or pass it off as a mainstream belief is dishonest and misleading. And are you sure the articles aren't based off of what people believe is and isn't common sense? Are you sure the people I've previously gotten into trouble with haven't been responsible for flooding the articles with their own cherrypicked sources? Can that not happen with admins? And to answer your question on whether I can edit something even if I don't fully agree with it yes I can, I have done so several times before if not more than I remember. So please don't question whether or not Wikipedia is the place for me because it is and I love it here Dan27032 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dan27032, it's not about your opinion, but about what reliable sources say. In the UK, Black has historically been used to refer to non-African-descended people as well. This has become less common but it's still an infrequent occurrence. See political Blackness. Riz Ahmed is an example of a South Asian person who still calls himself Black today. Southall Black Sisters was set up to support women of African and Asian descent, so it does include South Asian women in its definition of Black. See here for an interview which explains their origins. It doesn't matter if you don't agree. If you can't follow the sources, it creates problems and suggests you're not here to abide by Wikipedia's principles but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Lewisguile (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m not saying it’s about my opinion, no one in the real world considers South Asians black. Just because a select few in society historically and presently do so doesn’t make it the norm in any way. Black has not historically been used to refer to non-Africans in the UK I can’t believe I even need to say that to you. The average black person in the UK isn’t going to consider Asians black and the average Asian isn’t going to consider themselves black.

These quite literally are fringe beliefs and you’re promoting them and the sources as if they’re commonly held beliefs among people in the UK when I know for a fact they’re not Dan27032 (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You are also still incorrect, the "diffs" might mostly be race related but the actual warnings themselves mostly aren't. Everything in 2022 isn't race related, the only things that could be considered such are the December warning and the January warning. I think you are still distorting the truth even with the accusations being thrown my way, as well as this whole delusion about Asians being black Dan27032 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, you're now making personal attacks and doubling down on your unevidenced opinion. It doesn't help your case. Lewisguile (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How is pointing out your distortion of the truth a "personal attack"? Can you not handle being told you're not being entirely truthful? You claimed I have "been warned for repeated disruptive edits to race-related articles since 2022".. The examples from 2022 weren't even about race with most of the examples regarding race having been over the past 2 months or so, but do tell me what dates the "diffs" range from because I could be wrong there. You claimed I "continue to make such edits", implying I ignored the warnings for those specific articles in December and have since carried on editing on them.

You then proceeded to state "they have made some edits of gun- and rail-related articles, but none of them have edit summaries, so it's hard to gauge on what basis the edits were made. Most involve deleting a word or two" that is a complete understatement of my involvement in editing here, it has covered several more topics than just "gun and rail related" and I have definitely included summaries and edited more than "just a word or two", I vividly remember editing much more, providing sources and having it be accepted.

As for "doubling down on my unevidenced opinion" what do you expect? You think just because you've actually managed to provide sources that makes it believable? And you're talking about my opinion yet this entire narrative is formed by nothing more than just opinions, there is no factual basis. Just a small minority of non-black people having identified as black. Whether or not it was more common historically for black to encompass more than just, black people it has always been a minority held belief. I'm not sure if you're black/Asian or if you've even met a black/Asian but as someone that has met plenty neither of them would support this claim, in fact they would laugh at it Dan27032 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

And by "minority held belief" I don't just mean a belief held among ethnic minorities I mean a belief held my a minority of ethnic minorities Dan27032 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you not handle being told you're not being entirely truthful? Enough. Stop with the personal attacks. Even if you believe somebody else is wrong NPA doesn't stop being policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok forgive me if I'm getting too personal it's just that I've been brought here with some accusations which aren't even accurate and I simply suspect that this person is not giving a fair representation of what I've done with regards to edits, whether good or bad. I also suspect he is not being accurate for the sake of his argument against me.

If I am to get permanently/indefinitely banned from a topic despite saying I will not continue making edits on the articles I've gotten in trouble for doing so on I at least want to be able to defend myself Dan27032 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to address the unevidenced WP:ASPERSIONS, the February 2022 warning was for African diaspora. The March 2024 warning was for the Irish slaves myth. The December 2024 warning has the following response from you: I am sick of the blatant bias in all 4 of those articles. Race as a social construct might not be valid but it is widely accepted that humans expanded out of Africa, developed into different ethnic groups which dominate(d) different regions, and share common physical traits with one another as an evolutionary adaptation to their climate of origin. That isn't a good thing or a bad thing it's just a fact, it doesn't give them intellectual advantages or disadvantages. That notion doesn't make people unequal and there is literally nothing wrong with that simple observation... Etc. January 2025 was about the Black British article. The diffs I gave above span between December 2024 and January 2025, on such topics as definitions of race and the definition of Black British. These are all, broadly speaking, about race. I just wanted to clear that up, since you said these claims are false/misleading. I didn't go much further back, except to note that you'd done some edits which didn't immediately appear disruptive on the topics of guns and rail travel, which is in your favour. I think it best I leave this topic now, since I've made my case and I feel the evidence I've provided speaks for itself. Lewisguile (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The edits about the African diaspora weren't about race, the edits over the "Irish slave myth" weren't about race, and the edits to my old school weren't about race. The only truly race related edits are simply the the December and January warnings yet you're still claiming it's more than that and exaggerating how "race-obsessed" I am. That text you copied was literally from December 2024 and again, regardless of my opinion have I attempted to change those articles since? No I have not. Your whole reason for bringing me here was "repeated disruptive edits to race-related articles since 2022" yet according to your own evidence which you say "speaks for itself" I've only done so twice, and it hasn't been as far back as 2022. And if you are to make the case that the Irish slaves myth was about race given my views on the matter it's still just an ethnic group which according to the logic here doesn't correspond to race Dan27032 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Editor says they make productive edits in other areas, but appears to have no interest in changing their behavior in the area of race? So I propose topic-ban for race-related pages or content, broadly-construed. I do not have time to look at their "not race-related" edits to see if they really are not productive, and I have no problem supporting indef if they are not. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said since the December warning of the race related articles I have not attempted to make any changes to them, perhaps I did so with the most recent article because it really is just a fringe belief. If I am to kick up a hornets nest deleting certain content then I'm not going to do it again, if I find the time perhaps I will provide my own sources but I have yet to do so. But until then if I am to be met with fierce resistance the most I intend to do is raise my criticisms in the talk page Dan27032 (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The topic-ban I propose is for pages, not articles, which also means user-space and talkpages. But your response, in which you indicate not recognizing even what 'fringe' might mean and what edits you are actually making, and that talkpages are only for improving articles (which means using sources and site policies/guidelines) rather than WP:NOTFORUM, I am now wondering if there's a CIR problem. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: other edits, they have made some edits of gun- and rail-related articles, but none of them have edit summaries, so it's hard to gauge on what basis the edits were made. Most involve deleting a word or two: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

These do not immediately appear to be disruptive, but there is an issue of WP:CIR if basic policies aren't followed. Lewisguile (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I have included summaries in the past and cited my own sources for a number of things, of which have been accepted Dan27032 (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How do I indicate not “recognising what fringe means”? And how would I be missing the talk page? If I’ve told you I’m not going to repeat my actions then I don’t see why you’re still threatening me with a ban, will this ban be permanent? Dan27032 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Misusing* Dan27032 (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Dan27032, sometimes complaints sit for a while at ANI with no action being immediately taken. I understand that this can be stressful if you are the subject of the discussion but right now, there are no answers to your questions because no consensus has been reached here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

name calling

• BlahVlah

User BlahVlah is resorting to abusive languages please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision&diff=prev&oldid=1274234015 User:Astropulse — Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

please take necessary action against them

Please sign your complaint so we don't have to search the page history to know who you are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see you did add your username (I think) but you should really tag any talk page or discussion comments with a full signature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see a signature on the original post 2001:8003:B152:F200:7197:1F2D:70DD:3BA2 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's at the end of the first line, for some reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of BlahVlahs edits related to 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision seem alright, but calling someone fuckface or doing something only to mess with another editor should stop. Nobody (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked BlahVlah for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Return of disruptive serial comma/American English LTA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous threads: September 2024 (blocked 1 month), October 2024 (blocked 3 months)

Unfortunately, they are now back at 172.102.80.174 (talk · contribs)—of course, their behavior is identical, and identically frivolous and disruptive.[1] Please have them go away again soon. Remsense ‥ 论 06:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Messy misunderstandings occurred here. I've re-articulated the issue in full below.

Remsense, that appears to be a malformed request related to the splendor/splendour spelling variation. Please explain the connection to some imagined "American" comma variation. Commas, after all, have nothing to do with spelling. I hope that I did not inadvertantly use a comma in a way that you dislike. I hereby grant you a lifetime pass to edit all of my comma usage without objection, since you care so much about how commas are used. Whenever I write "color", also feel free to change it to "colour" since everyone knows what both spellings mean and it will make you feel better without bothering me in the least. Go to town! Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC) The ip editor in question does seem to be adding oxford commas [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. as well as demanding US spelling [6] and [7] and removing tags (including BLP sourcing) [8], [9] and [10].Nigel Ish (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC) The request they keep making at Talk:Akbar is to change the spelling in a quote, so obviously is never going to happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Apparently [200] "has enough spruces". Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Regardless of whether this is an LTA, the IP is being disruptive and I've blocked for 31 hours. Should it resume, the block can be extended. Star Mississippi 14:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Any glance at the edit history of this IP and that I've already linked and examined in detail in the previous posts—64.189.18.0/24 (talk · contribs)—should make it perfectly clear they are the same person. Like I already wrote in those posts, they do not listen, won't stop, and as they seem to be editing from a static IP now, should be indefinitely blocked. Remsense ‥ 论 15:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC) I do not believe in indefinitely blocking IPs, but anyone is welcome to adjust the block as they see fit. This was purely to stop the immediate disruption Star Mississippi 15:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) I'm just making clear in advance that it will not do anything for when I have to return here in two days. Remsense ‥ 论 15:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC) I've seen IP accounts blocked for a few months or, in rare cases, 1 year for LTA and serious vandals, but I don't think this IP falls under that category. I also find your request Please have them go away again soon. very odd, making editors who have different understandings of spellings and commas disappear isn't really the purpose of ANI which is to handle chronic, intractable problems and serial vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Liz, you can only write a response framing my concerns in that way if you disregard the previous threads which I attached. I made them one click away at the very top for a reason. To be blunt, I know what ANI is for, so please refrain from feeling the need to educate me as such. If I can nip this in the bud right now, I understand your concerns are with making ANI as hassle-free and clear as possible for admins and reporters, and I understand that my previous appearances here have given you some reason to critique my presentations of certain cases (minimal diffs, etc.), but I feel I haven't ignored those concerns. While I'm imperfect in assessing these things, I'm asking you to take a step back and reconsider your tact with me also, if you've developed such based on possible missteps of mine, as I feel distinctly condescended to. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 16:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC) @Remsense as far as I'm aware, you and I have no history other than incidental on AN reports. You have three admins here not seeing the issue as meriting drastic action. To me that reads as an unclear report. We're all human and guilty of that, as well as perhaps misreading a report if you believe it's complete. I think though this makes it clear that there's may be a need for more info. If the edits recur, well then it might not be. Star Mississippi 17:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC) The basic outline of the issue is a user, whose constant disruption and refusal to communicate required a 1mo, then a 3mo block, is back with identical behavior. That's all I have left to report, since I detailed their behavior in the original post in September—if no one gets it, then I don't get why they don't get it. Remsense ‥ 论 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry if you saw my comment as condescending, that wasn't my intent. I just objected to the wording of your complaint. I don't view a possible temporary block of an IP account as making editors "go away" because another editor requested it be done. That's just not how I view the function of ANI or the role of admins, which is to investigate cases that are posted here. I've made similar comments to other editors who came to ANI and seem to be making a demand of admins who patrol this board. But I will honor your request, give you some space and try to avoid responding to the complaints you start on this noticeboard from here on out. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC) @Liz, no need. I appreciate your engagement, thank you. Your own points are valid; I just get frustrated at myself when I try to file things that are succinct but end up creating even more work in the process for others trying to decode them. That's a balance I try really hard to achieve and am unduly sensitive about when I fail. Remsense ‥ 论 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I've unarchived. Following a brief block by Star Mississippi, this static IP is once more engaging in identical disruption to that of 64.189.18.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had earned them multiple month-long blocks (see the post from September):

• Serial comma militancy[11][12][13] (and most of their edits by volume)
• Pigheaded insistence on the use of American English regardless of context[14][15][16]
• Indiscriminate, arbitrary removal of maintenance tags[17][18][19][20]

To be as clear as possible, this user has previously made it explicit that they will not stop engaging in any of their disruptive behavior.[21][22] Remsense ‥ 论 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for six months. If an admin feels longer is merited, no objection to an adjustment. @Remsense thanks for the more clear report in this update. Star Mississippi 17:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I do try to learn from foibles and missteps of this kind, so I'm glad that was successful here. Remsense ‥ 论 17:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks from Royz-vi Tsibele

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Royz-vi Tsibele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blatant personal attack at Special:Diff/1274340302. Calling another editor "fascist" is not acceptable. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Royz-vi Tsibele for 31 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable redirects and a refusal to communicate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I asked BittersweetParadox, an editor with a history of yelling at people in response to editorial concerns, to stop making what seem to be useless redirects to me: Super Bowl 060 and all the others. I asked them 22:56, and they went on to make another dozen or more, and still haven't responded. I mean, I guess they're done now, so what kind of intervention could I look for, but User:Smasongarrison, you've seen the behavior of this editor, and you weren't impressed either. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, I guess they're not done. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Blocked by Floquenbeam, who beat me to it. Endorse block to allow them to find their Talk and hopefully learn to communicate. Star Mississippi 23:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've issued a short block to get their attention. Any admin can unblock if they start interacting with other editors - a requirement in a collaborative endeavor. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the appeal demonstrated the opposite of what you requested for an appeal to be considered. It may be the worst unblock request I've seen.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Alas we have an unblock that says I didn't reply to the user that commented on my talk page because I was not doing anything wrong, so I wasn't going to give them the time of day. I'm sorry if that hurt their feelings, so I do not think this will be quickly resolved. Star Mississippi 23:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

My characteristic optimism was apparently misplaced. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reblock indef, until an attitude adjustment occurs. If anyone thinks this was too harsh, feel free to modify without my input, I'm about to log off. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone who interacts like this (1 2) shouldn't be editing the project at all. That goes beyone just blowing off steam while being frustrated over a block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Holy shit and they are talking about I got my feelings hurt? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy! I think indef is the right call. Best case here is that the block gets them to realize that they've got to communicate with other people. Worst case -- it protects volunteer time from having to clean up.^SMason_Garrison 23:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting how editors who think Wikipedia has "gone downhill" or gone to Hell still spend their time on it, editing. You'd think if we were in such terrible shape, they'd find somewhere else to spend their time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems that they are using their TPA to attempt to make others mad. @Liz, can I request that user's TPA be revoked? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

they haven't since I gave them a last chance in my declined unblock, but yes I closely read some of the time stamps before leaving it be for now. Unfortunately I think we're headed there before the (US) morning. Star Mississippi 00:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I defer to Star Mississippi as she is more involved as an admin in this situation than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP vandal / troll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[23][24][25] Zenomonoz (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. This report probably would've been better for WP:AIV. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Will use in future. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle has a feature to make reporting there easy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility from User:Derpytoucan continues despite repeated warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Derpytoucan continues to assume bad faith and be uncivil despite numerous warnings, including a final warning from me literally earlier today. He has been warned at least three times in the last two weeks about (not) assuming good faith; he’s also been recently warned about bludgeoning the process. diff 1, and diff 2 are two examples from Talk:Denali; he also just made another AGF-violating comment on Talk:Kuwohi in an RM discussion, accusing me of policy violations. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hurricane Clyde, wasn't Derpytoucan brought to a noticeboard discussion in the past few weeks? If you could provide a link to any previous discussions involving this editor, that would really help. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if he was or not. But he was warned at least two other times about incivility because I looked at his talk page when I issued my warning; I chose the level 3 (which was the maximum level possible for that) because of the other two warnings. I can look though and see. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It Was Derpytoucan who opened the ANI with a closure by Liz before any possible boomerang Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1177#Possible sealioning by User:NorthBySouthBaranof Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I should have remembered since I closed the discussion. Thanks for digging up that link. Derpytoucan, this should have been a warning to be on your best behavior but the diffs reveal a lot of negative opinions about other editors and the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Derpytoucan (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

He is also continuing to post snarky comments on his talk page and pinging me into it. I have stated that I refuse to comment on that talk page anymore until it dies down. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I pinged you once. Again, just total dishonesty. "He is continuing to ping me..." Unbelievable. Derpytoucan (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Derpytoucan, putting words in other editors' mouths is not a good look when you're already at ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to comment on this. I said he’s continuing to make snarky comments; I am fully aware you only pinged me once. Please stop calling me a liar.

You don’t realize that I am subscribed to notifications in those threads (including this one), which means every time someone replies, I am notified about it. Final comment for the night. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for at least admitting I only pinged you once (which last I checked, is not a violation of Wikipedia rules). It would have been prudent to put that in your original reply on the matter. Derpytoucan (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Where did I put words in his mouth? I would argue it's "not a good look" for him to just lie about things I never did. Derpytoucan (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Derpytoucan, please stop calling me a liar. That is blatantly against WP:AGF. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I wrote this before your other comment. Derpytoucan (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Where did I put words in his mouth? Right here: Again, just total dishonesty. "He is continuing to ping me...". Clyde never said that. He did not lie about things I never did except in your own mind - which lead to you making a personal attack on him right here on ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"He is also continuing to post snarky comments on his talk page and pinging me into it" implies exactly what I said. I am glad he clarified, but do not accuse me of putting words in others' mouths. Derpytoucan (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You quoted him. He did not say what you quoted him saying. Q.E.D.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Derpytoucan#February 2025 is the relevant link. Busheanger, you can judge for yourself if the comments he made are snarky by your definition; but they certainly come across as snarky to me. Particularly the one where he pings me and says Before you leave, I have evidence that the renaming of Mount McKinley was also approved by multiple votes, with the link pointing to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I was not reported on here. I reported someone else for griefing a talk page/sealioning but it turned into a WP:BOOMERANG because I was accused of "bludgeoning" for calling out untruthful or dishonest statements. I stopped because I figured it was a waste of time anyway. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Diff 2 appears to be saying the same thing as WP:PACT, which (without more context) seems reasonable. Diff 1 however seems to strike a similar tone to Derpytoucan's response in the last ANI thread where, when told that bludgeoning is not okay even if the other person is wrong, replied, Then go ahead and block me from the talk page. I am concerned that this editor believes they only need to obey the WP:P&Gs, including WP:CIV, when they feel like it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You know what, perhaps I've just been misunderstanding AGF the whole time. If AGF only stops applying for "vandalism" then maybe I was wrong (Still total BS that there isn't a mechanism for calling out obvious NPOV violations on-site but whatever). Derpytoucan (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Here’s the thing @EducatedRedneck, WP:PACT and WP:IAR doesn’t allow people to blatantly violate policies in bad faith (see WP:NOTIAR); and it does not allow people to continuously assume bad faith (whether explicitly or implicitly). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I sent Derpytoucan a message a few days ago telling them to stop bludgeoning on Talk:Denali. Since then, Derpytoucan has bludgeoned several more times in the same discussion, including their comment about AGF being thrown out of the window, which was way beyond the pale. The user has done exactly the same thing at Talk:Kuwohi, being completely fixated on the Denali move request despite it being a completely different RM, linking to Talk:Mount McKinley instead of Talk:Denali to make a WP:POINT, and has casted countless WP:ASPERSIONS while bludgeoning in both discussions that fall into the category of "You're just doing this because you don't like Trump". Derpytoucan appears to be WP:NOTHERE, and is only here to push a political point by WP:BLUDGEONING to the point of absurdity. This screams NOTHERE.

The user's behavior reminds me of this discussion where a user was bludgeoning to obsess over labeling people as Jews in the first sentence of articles. As can be seen above, in this and the other discussion, both editors bludgeoned the very ANI discussion – as ten colons do not arise naturally. Clearly we can all agree on that much. Would support an AP2 topic ban or indef, as the users complaints of a double standard smell of WP:RGW. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

An AP2 topic ban (when I mainly write about politicians) or indef (when I have never been blocked before) all over geographic naming disputes both seem unnecessarily extreme, especially the latter one given that "6th commandment" you have on your user page. And what's wrong with my userbox? Is having a different opinion on site ownership not allowed? Derpytoucan (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, a foundation "owns" the hundreds of existing Wikipedia sites and they are not for sale. It's peculiar for an active editor to advocate a billionaire try to take personal ownership over our platforms rather than a nonprofit corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see that diff. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see. It’s a user box. If it’s a template, I’d like a link to it so I can TfD it; because userboxes like that are the complete opposite of what Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation stands for. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

without comment on whether or not you should as I am Involved, @Hurricane Clyde, User:Derpytoucan/Userboxes/Elon Musk Wikipedia is MfD eligible. Star Mississippi 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Then it’s getting MfD’d. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If WMF Office ever found out about that page, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see that page get deleted as an office action. But I’d rather let the community consensus get this deleted, so it is being listed at MfD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the WMF Office would get involved, they've taken much worse criticism in the past and they don't get involved in content decisions unless it involves Trust & Safety. That bein said, I think MFD is an appropriate forum for considering this userbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I warned Derpytoucan on Talk:Denali for casting aspersions a few days ago [26] but this does not appear to have stopped the issue; as you will note they are still accusing people of lying I was accused of "bludgeoning" for calling out untruthful or dishonest statements in this very thread. That's before you start on ridiculous logic [27] or that userbox. It's a shame because they have created some good content, but put them into a political argument and it doesn't go well. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked one week for DE. This is a longer than normal for a first block, but the conduct here merits it. An argument could be made for longer, which I would not disagree with either. Star Mississippi 16:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that Derpytoucan has requested a proxy edit on their talk page. I have warned them against it, but more eyes on their talk page wouldn't hurt. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh don’t worry. I watchlisted his user page and talk page when I issued my warning. I’ll be paying more attention to that now that you’ve mentioned it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Follow up: I am removing the user/user talk pages from my watchlist after receiving criticism from an administrator (who I will not be naming) about why it’s not a good idea. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning this diff which felt a little WP:CANVASS-y to me. Afaik it's the only one they sent, but given the rest of their behavior it seems tendentious CambrianCrab (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It certainly looks like an invitation to canvassing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Severe and persistent vandalism and personal attacks by 75.28.36.14

User:75.28.36.14 has chronically and repeatedly violated

• WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS
• WP:CIVILITY
• WP:VANDALISM
• WP:ASPERSIONS

Basically every edit by this IP address has been non-constructive: Special:Contributions/75.28.36.14.

These are just the latest examples:

• [28]: I hope you people remember how pathetically worthless you are when you die. When you leave this world I hope it's with the realization that you didn't do anything to make it better.

• [29]: Calling another user an "idiot".

• [30]: Calling another user "fascist sympathizer".

• [31]: Same as above.

• [32]: Editing the White House Press Secretary page to display a Nazi flag and photo of an anus.

• [33]: Same as above.

• [34]: Telling another user "Get off my page."

• [35]: Telling another user You are nobody And you are completely irrelevant.

• [36] Calling another user a "Nazi sympathizer".

• [37] Same as above.

• [38]: Accusing other users of "protecting Nazis".

• [39] Telling another user You're too stupid to be on the internet..

• [40]: Calling other users "brainwashed".

• [41]: Same as above.

• [42]: Same as above.

• [43]: Calling another user a "sympathizer".

• [44]: Falsifying source material.

• [45]: Same as above.

• [46]: Telling another user to "shut up".

This clearly merits a permanent block, extending the user's current 1-week block (which is inadequately short, given the above behavior). 50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses don't get indef'd, because they tend to be dynamic. This one is now blocked for a week with TPA removed, which for any IP is a reasonable first block. If they resume on the same address when the block expires, indicating it's a static-ish IP, then the next block will be longer (but in general even the most static-looking IPs don't get blocked for longer than a year, because eventually they will change). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Such severe vandalism and personal attacks merit at the very least a 1-month block, which can be and is applied to IP addresses, even for a first time block. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

In any case, I filed a blacklist request for the anus image at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Edit_request_5_February_2025, and it's likely that their three edits at that page will be RD3'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

One of the anus edits got RD2'd, but four more are still up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, they're all gone now. I think RD2 was the correct call here, since the image used is a female anus and it was replacing an image of Karoline Leavitt, with obvious misogyny at play besides the message of Leavitt being a fascist asshole. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

And considering that two of the redacted edits were made by a user named ChiefPigger (talk · contribs) rather than 75.xx, it's likely that this user is a block evader. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This is very similar to what another "7x" ip was doing to me. They called me fascist aswell, possible sock? Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 01:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Also, the Pig and the IP seem to be unrelated. The real surprise is that it took so long to block. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think they mean 77.243.29.47 (diff)? You blocked that one for attacks + block evasion. Unless there was another IP starting with 7 that was calling Stumblean fascist.

No comment on if these look like the same person. – 2804:F1...70:D42D (::/32) (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It was that one Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 03:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hello, I have endured fair share of harassment and personal attacks over nearly 20 years of contributing to the project. However, yesterday's attack piece is truly intolerable. I left a message below the post, thinking it would suffice, but I have changed my mind. I will no longer tolerate such blatant attacks by nationalists. I beg you to take a note and evaluate the intensity or severity of this editor's post. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that the academic author being denounced so harshly in the attack linked above is John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Nor should you tolerate it; that was a very egregious attack, and I'd certainly give thumbs-up to any block of that SPA. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that all of this is happening within the scope of WP:ARBMAC or WP:ARBEE. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@WikiEditHr filed an edit warring report against @Santasa99 which has been closed as no violation. I'm reinviting @WikiEditHr to participate in this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Up until now, I have not seen a single explanation as to which of my comments exactly would qualify as an "egregious attack" (Remark: the author does not deem it necessary to use the prefix "verbal" when referring to an "egregious attack" in this qualification), or an "attack piece".

If you want to move forward with a block, you will certainly have to be very precise with your accusations and point out word for word what you perceive as being a misrepresentation. Otherwise, this could very quickly be interpreted as an ideologically motivated attack on myself as well as the Croatian scientific community, which the user Santasa99 deems unworthy as a reference.

As to the topic at hand:

John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. work is politically motivated and has been by and large dismissed by Croatian historians as the writings of a Yugo-nostalgic, which by his own admissions, he is. For reference see p114 of Fine Jr.'s 2006 work "When Ethnicity did not Matter in the Balkans":

"If one believes in the Yugoslav ideal, as I do, one can regret anything that divided any two parts of the Serbo-Croat people. (114)."

This is just one of the many examples, where Fine Jr. negates the existence of the Croatian people (referring to both nations as one - similar to what the Russians are doing right now in the Ukraine), and with that modern Croatian statehood, in favour of the Yugoslav ideology (similar to what Putin, Dugin and other Russian ideologues are doing by conjuring up a Soviet worldview). So how can one then expect that somebody, who does not even accept the present state of affairs, would be capable of giving an objective and fair judgement of the past. Another word for ideological prejudice against Croats is Croatophobia, which is clearly displayed by both Fine Jr. and Santasa99.

Consequently, any reference to Fine Jr.'s work must be dismissed in online discourse, the same way it has been for years in Croatian Universities and intellectual circles. However, I urge you to not take my own word for it. Professor Neven Budak of the University of Zagreb shares my opinion. He wrote that fine Fine has "ideological prejudices" and "preconceived conclusions". Further Budak claimed that "the author did not prepare methodologically, nor did he become acquainted with the relevant works of non-Croatian authors", that Fine's approach to the topic "contrary to stated intentions - is traditionalist in its method, superficial and unreliable", alleging inappropriate "attitude towards Croats". (Reference to the original comments by Professor Budak in this paper:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847).

I am shocked that the University of Michigan has not seen it as at least questionable to allow an ideologue such as Fine Jr. to lead their department, something which will certainly have to be investigated futher.

Professor Neven Budak (who by the way I am not a fan of either, but still have the decency to not dismiss him) is referred to by the user Santasa99 in one of his comments as "a charlatan" (Reference:Talk:Hrvatinić noble family#What J.V.A. Fine say in "When ethnicity...". "Bani Croatorum" or "Croatieque regius viceregens") while Fine Jr. is praised as "serious scholar of international reputation". Certainly not a nice thing to say about a Professor from the premier institution in the world on this topic. I would even go as far as to call it an "egregious attack" on a respected member of the Croatian scientific community. Would you not agree?

How is it possible that for years these personal attacks on Croatian scientists and the dismissal of historical facts by Santasa99 over a wide range of articles in favour of a Yugoslav ideology were missed by the Administrators? Maybe a question for you to answer.

If we allow these blatant verbal croatophoic attacks to continue, we might just as well allow Russian editors back to raise havoc on Ukrainian Wikipedia articles. WikiEditHr (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This what I said about Croatian scholars, Neven Budak and Gordan Ravančić, in above linked comment: Gordan Ravančić, deputy head of "Croatian Institute of History", together with Neven Budak, is probably one of the most influential Croatian medievalist, and is expected to be taken seriously by English wikipedia community..

And this is what I said about Fine Jr. Meanwhile, being serious scholar of international reputation, not a charlatan, Fine refers to Hrvoje Vukčić in this manner in all of his books and research, starting with his two-volume magnum opus, The Early Medieval Balkans and The Late Medieval Balkans. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiEditHr, we have close to 7 million articles and about 400 active administrators, who all focus on different areas of the project so it shouldn't be a surprise that suspicious edits go on on many and many articles without any admins being aware of them. That's why we have noticeboards, like this one, so editors can bring incidents to the attention of other editors and admins. It's everyone's responsibility to call attention to existing problems when they come across them as we are all volunteers here. This is no one's full-time job. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, it is an "egregious attack" (as User talk:Ravenswing properly called it), and I wonder what else do we need to wrap this case up with at least a topic-ban broadly construed per WP:ARBMAC / WP:ARBEE. It's obvious from his continued rants that the editor will not stop on its own unless stopped. After creating original attack-post, editor continued casting baseless aspersions, continued using ad hominem and vile analogies, first by filing a retaliatory 3RR report against me (linked above by User:Rsjaffe) in which they said that my behaviour is irrational and unscientific and that it's a "pattern", and now continued here in a just about same or similar tone heard in the original attack post.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Possible off-topic comment After a 3 year long break from this site (and another 2 month one shortly afterward) this being among the first things I see sickens me to my core. Action must certainly be taken against this user. Kinda sad some people just do this type of stuff. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

AIntrestingGuy, I recommend that you stay away from AN and ANI. This is where we come to to discuss troubling issues that affect a minority of editors. This is not the area of the project to come to to be inspired. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, please, is @AIntrestingGuy allowed to comment on the issue or not? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, the editor is not blocked from participating at ANI. It's just that the editor was physically sicken by the discussion here so I was recommending that he not frequent this noticeboard because these incidents are fairly common here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Nakoda77

• Carry the Kettle Nakoda Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nakoda77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent unsourced additions to Carry the Kettle Nakoda Nation. This article seems to have been completely owned by them since its start. A partial block may resolve this. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be an underlying WP:CIR issue where the editor claims to have sources but does not know how to insert refs. [47]. Have you offered to show them how to properly do this? Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I reached out to them and gave them links to citation templates - hopefully they will start citing their contributions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem with the citations rather, I believe they are adding WP:OR. If I remember right, some of the sources I spot checked on 2 February 2024 didn't seem to back up the statements made. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Short of reading the entirety of Owóknage The Story of Carry The Kettle Nakoda First Nation I'm not sure we can say that based on the information that exists to date. I'd suggest we wait and see how Nakoda77 replies. They have not edited since I posted advice on drafting citations on their user talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be being a little hard on this user. From my search, a lot of the information that was added is verifiable. Here's one link about the name of the mountain as an example. I think this is simply a case of not understanding the policy around verifiable sources, or not understanding how to include references. Either way, I'd say this is a talk it out and help sort of situation, not blockworthy. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What you have linked is certainly not an independent source. Here is the editor acknowledging that the "sourcing is elder oral testimony that has been presented in federal court". I explained what WP:V meant to this user on 27 February 2024, to which they replied that I was "covering up a crime of genocide".

I sometimes do a WP:BEFORE when deleting a large amount of text and I wasn’t able to find anything close to what they wrote in the article. Maybe the sources are under different names/terms. Though I am unfamiliar with the history, there is a source in the same article that discusses bison extinction, but it only mentions First Nations. I am not sure if the Nakota were the only First Nations people that existed at that time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

First Nations is a general term for the various Indigenous cultures of Canada. However the book they mentioned at their User talk is an academic text about their Nation in specific. And it's a well-reviewed one at that. If they sincerely don't know how to cite then they likely also need education regarding WP:V as well. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

User:2403:4800:8487:3F33:F997:CCE6:BCE:EC1B edits on Sophie Walsh - keeps reverting my edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:2403:4800:8487:3F33:F997:CCE6:BCE:EC1B/User talk:2403:4800:8487:3F33:F997:CCE6:BCE:EC1B has constantly been reverting my correct edits on Sophie Walsh; as I know it she is currently the co-presenter on Weekend Today but this user keeps reverting it to "was the co-presenter" when nothing has been confirmed, and has repeatedly done it without adding a source.

Avatar5991 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Avatar5991, this is primarily a content dispute combined with edit warring. Do not edit war. I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please discuss the matter at Talk: Sophie Walsh. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Robinvp11

Robinvp11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From what I can tell, everything went downhill when I reverted their edit (that replaced sourced content with WP:OR).

• They then added similar unsourced content to the article's body.

• I cn tagged it.

• That's when they restored the first unsourced content with this edit summary:

I'm editing this in good faith and it would be great if other editors adopted the same approach. I'm investing a lot of effort into updating an extremely poor article, and it would be great if you could contribute something, rather than just removing stuff you don't like. How about you go out and find some Sources? My interest uis purely because I lived in Algeria for six years, what's yours? This was shocking to me (I honestly couldn't figure out why an experienced editor would write such a thing).

• When I asked them to explain what they meant by the above, their response was:

So far, I don't see you've earned the right to anything pal.

Misrepresenting the sources

• They then replaced the cn tags with a source (without page numbers).

• I tagged the source (page number needed).

• They added the page numbers.

• I checked the source and removed the claim that failed verification (without making a big deal out of it).

• They added a similar claim and misrepresented another source (this time, a blog). The same blog was also misrepresented here to support another claim.

• They then misrepresented a news article.

• When I removed what failed failed verification, they restored it, while describing it as properly Sourced material.

• When challenged to prove it, they started playing games, and when I made the request very simple, by asking for the page numbers only, they categorically refused to provide them.

Aspersion casting and goading

In addition to what they said right after I reverted their OR, here are some of the comments that I was subjected to:

• I was wondering... but then I looked at your edit history and stopped wondering This is what they wrote two weeks after I left a comment on the talk page. The personal attack is beyond the pale.

• Its hard to discuss content with someone wh appears determined to reverse anything which doesn't align with their view. more aspersions (I even left some their unsourced content stand).

• I have a life outside Wikipedia no comment necessary.

• Wow, look at all these Sources that are available to motivated editors (diff). This is their edit summary, while fiddling with the sources that I added to the article.

Canvassing and misrepresenting what I said

• the editor insists it is Wikipedia policy (see diff) this is the false claim that they attributed to me, while asking Gog the Mild a question about what they consider reliable sources ie published books you can buy on Amazon..

• its usually because the individual doesn't like the answer (see diff) their reply to Gog the Mild who rightly said that "If an editor says something is policy they need to be able to state which policy."

1) I never said it was policy, much less insist on it. 2) I was having a discussion with someone else who actually agreed with me (here's what I said to them and here's their reply).

• I passed on your explanation for reversing the last edit to an editor with over 25 years experience. Let’s just say they don’t agree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH in this context the first thing that springs to mind is WP:STEALTH. I have no idea who this editor is or what Robinvp11 said to them, but given the above and the fact that there is no trace of the editor in question, I'm left with no other choice but to assume that they falsely attributed another claim to me as I highly doubt that an experienced editor would disagree with what I said (one cannot combine WP:OR and sourced content, let alone do so to reach a conclusion that isn't stated in any of the cited sources).

• the Sources provide don't "suggest", they state; if there other sources which provide different figures, then please insert them (see diff) the trouble with this is that they added the word "suggest" to two different statements, including the one that they referring to, and then tried to blame it on me. When reminded (with a diff) that they added it, they came up with an explanation that doesn't hold much water (their edit summary is clearly addressed to me). M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• at the moment the other editor is simply reversing my edits (see diff) this is what they falsely claimed about me to Gog the Mild (again), when in fact, I tagged their additions and started a discussion about their unexplained changes.

While I can deal with their addition of WP:OR and their misrepresentation of the sources (which, is my view, is worse than than adding original research); being attacked from the get go for no reason whatsoever and then seeing what I said being misrepresented to make me look like a bad editor is just too much for me to handle. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been directly involved in an ANI before, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond. While others will determine the relevance and accuracy of this lengthy list of points, it is an extremely partial presentation.

First, if I've hurt anyone's feelings, as appears to be the case, I'm really sorry. Even when I disagree, I don't mind being challenged, because it invariably improves the article, but I forget others are more sensitive.

Second, great emphasis has been placed on publishing "diffs". I've never denied making these edits, which have since been updated, expanded, or referenced after being reversed. I did try responding to the first few, but doing so required a lot of work, simply generated more accusations, and I wasn't really sure what the point was. So I decided to focus on updating the article.

Third, constant and almost instantaneous edit reverts without explanation did lead me to question whether the other editor was interested in improving the article, as opposed to pushing a specific objective. As an experienced editor, I should know better, but it requires mutuality and collaborative behaviours from both parties.

Fourth, I have been subjected to an almost constant barrage of accusations of violating various Wikipedia guidelines (12 at the last count). In almost every case, the guidelines quoted are either taken out of context, or do not say what the editor claims, which could be interpreted as "misrepresentation". For example, I provided a Source but was told it was Unreliable because it was published in 1905 and "not written by an historian". Neither of these stipulations appear in Wikipedia, and it is currently the subject of an RfC.

Lastly, the article has been immeasurably improved, and once my edits stop being reversed or tagged without valid, Wikipedia-approved reasons, I will submit it for FAC review. So I'm not sure why I'm being accused of disruptive editing. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Picking just one single item out of the extensive list provided by OP - this is either sheer incapacity to be accountable, sheer inability to understand sourcing requirements, or sheer trolling. Take your pick. Any of them makes me seriously doubt Robinvp11's suitability for participating here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at the article and tell me where I have failed to provide Reliable Sources. Robinvp11 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 24 hours for edit warring. @Robinvp11: You're being accused of disruptive editing because, instead of following your own advice, you cast aspersions towards other editors and edit warred to insert unsourced claims and unreliable sources. You must provide sources when asked to do so per WP:BURDEN and you must use reliable sources, not blogs or primary sources with no indicia of reiliability. If you cannot do that, you will likely be blocked from editing the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at the article, and tell me where I have failed to provide Reliable Sources. Robinvp11 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill has already explained why the source you're relying on isn't reliable: Special:Diff/1273284715. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are asked, point blank, to conform with one of the most basic requirements for any editor and to provide page numbers for claimed statements, and your response is one and a half pages of evasion, wikilawyering, and blustering, you are disqualifying yourself from participation. Stop this behaviour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

So, you asked an editor with over 25 years experience, did you? Wikipedia has been in existence for 24 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I clearly don't understand this "arbitration process". I'm not going to defend my behaviour, so make your decision, I see no value in spending any more time on this. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how it's difficult to understand that nobody can have over 25 years experience of editing an encyclopedia that has existed for 24 years. I have been told not to accuse anyone of lying by an editor who I (and many others) respect enormously, so let's just say that that statement was untrue. I just wish people would come clean about it when they are caught uttering an obvious untruth. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for being a year off in my statement. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING at its finest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: if you don't want to be blocked I recommend (1) apologizing; (2) committing to using reliable sources; and (3) working to reach consensus with others without insulting them. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for any behaviour that failed to comply with Wikipedia standards. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

What behavior would that be? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been directly involved in an ANI before you have.12

I'm not going to defend my behaviour yet, when I said "I was hoping it goes to ANI", your response was Dear me, we don't want that - no need to keep on "hoping", as requested five (now six) times.

I forget others are more sensitive your response to Barr Epstein (who left this comment on your talk page) tells a different story. M.Bitton (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding to the above, you also went to the other editor's talk page to double down on the fact that you wanted me to escalate: I've asked the other editor six times to escalate the topic, but despite constantly threatening to do so, they haven't - maybe because they're uncertain as to the outcome. M.Bitton (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Please pass this on to user:Drmies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone. Unfortunately I don't have an account and User:Drmies's talk page is semi-protected. Please could someone pass along the following message:

"You, Drmies, are the most VILE and HORRENDOUS specimen of humankind (if you can even be described as such) that I have ever encountered at Wikipedia. And that is certainly saying something as there is an abundance of candidates for that accolade. How you can continue to strut about on this site so shamelessly and obliviously unaware of this is beyond me. It is truly astonishing that you've been getting away with this for so long with noone bringing you to task. I sincerely hope you take the time to reflect on what you are, as you are certainly not liked NOT ONE LITTLE BIT. Yours sincerely, ~~~~

Thanks in advance for helping me out on this. 83.244.224.156 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• You're welcome, dude. Keep in mind, verbosity is the enemy of clarity. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 69.156.206.236

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

69.156.206.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. IP was blocked twice in December 2024 for addition of unsourced content, most recently for 2 weeks, and behaviour continued after blocks expired. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2.99.47.31

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2.99.47.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - multiple warnings, has just come back from a block, and is still adding unsourced content to BLPs. Longer block needed please. GiantSnowman 09:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe this will be dealt with quicker on WP:AIV? Special:Diff/1274250987 seems like a red flag in my eyes. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 09:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

AIV will invariably lead to a short block only - in which case I'll no doubt be back in 48 hours asking for more help. GiantSnowman 09:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on images and OR

Moved from AIV

PharaohCrab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editor PharaohCrab on 17 November 2024 added an image into the Kek (mythology) article which appears to contain a photoshopped image of the politicised Pepe the Frog image. The image which Editor PharaohCrab added has nothing to do with Egyptian mythology, and he did not provide veriable reliable sources for his addition. I have thusly reverted his addition from 17 November 2024 back to the original image. Unfortunately, Editor PharaohCrab has kept adding the image back without providing any verifiable reliable source. He has received 4 warnings on his talk page, but he keeps re-adding the fake photoshopped image back into the said article without providing any reliable source for his addition. The impression is created as if the Kek (mythology) article being politicised with the Pepe the Frog imagery. Could an administrator please take a look at this? Thank you. 77.7.215.64 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)}}

I DID provide a source. PharaohCrab (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This DOESN'T look like meme Kek at all. IapetusCallistus (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this count as WP:OR? I looked at PharaohCrab's edits and image creations and it appears that the images are the users creations and interpretations of other images. It is unclear what reference materials are used. Given that an IP editor has raised concerns and it appears to me that this might be considered original research, I am bringing this issue to this noticeboard for input. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems pretty blatant, this is not just a "frog's head", this is Pepe. If you were on social media during the first Trump term, you saw this image thousands of times although dressing him up in Egyptian clothing is new to me. The connection between Pepe and Kek can be seen at Pepe the Frog#Kek. Of course, if there is a longstanding legitimate connection between this alt-right term and this frog imgage, it should be easy to find a scholarly source to verify this. That's really all that the IP editor has been asking for all of this time. But if there is no connection, this seems like it might cross over into AMPOL2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Then there is this image, File:The Ogdoad.svg, also original artwork, that is used all over different Wikipedia projects. And there is no verification that these images have any grounding in artwork from the period they claim to be from. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't see any resemblance to Pepe. I downloaded the image in question, and then cut the frog head out of the image, and uploaded it to Google image search, and got no results for it being Pepe. The closest result to the file in question was this image, which is apparently a creature from Heroes of Might and Magick III. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to add that there were no Google image search results for it being associated with Kek (mythology) either. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

...yeah, File:Kek God.png isn't Pepe, and I'm surprised anyone could confuse it with Pepe. That said, it absolutely isn't appropriate for the article it was apparently being edit-warred to be put into. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

the only person who visibly objected to that image being included is this ip. PharaohCrab (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

it is original artwork, but not unsourced, i based it off images like this, though it is not traced you can clearly see how the two images relate PharaohCrab (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This is familiar, User24202 (talk · contribs) was doing this with the same images in 2023 [48], and stopped editing around January 2024, when this account appeared. They appeared at that time to be building a walled garden of these images, see the history of User:User24202/Vector_images_of_ancient_Egyptian_deities [49]. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be at least two distinct issues here:

1. Whether this is a copy of Pepe the frog, and
2. Whether it is suitable for this article.

I'll leave the first issue alone, as the answer to the second is a resounding "no". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is that? I feel like no reason why this image should not included has been provided besides the Pepe thing, or that it is unsourced,(even though it has been sourced) PharaohCrab (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Because we have real photographs that can be used as the lead image, rather than user-generated dross like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

this may be true on most pages but in pages for egyptian deities, vectors are preferred PharaohCrab (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Show us this consensus, remembering that local agreements don't override sourcing and OR policies. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

the consensus is unspoken but clear if you go to any Egyptian Deity page. I also do have a source (as I have said several times) the image is also not intended to be political in any way, it is intended to portray a male member of the Ogdoad, in Which Kek is a member. PharaohCrab (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Then there's no consensus. Benign intentions don't make it OK. Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

what are you talking about? PharaohCrab (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You assert an "unspoken consensus," which is not a thing. And your intentions don't make it OK to use a Pepe the Frog/Jeff Dahl mashup in articles. Please read WP:OR again, it applies to user-generated images too. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

it is not Pepe, it is just a frog. I'm quite confused about how anyone could make that mistake PharaohCrab (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Pharaoh Crab. I think for the sake of peace, just let the issue on using vectors Kek to pass. While I agree that it is not Pepe, it seems that many don't agree about what you are doing for that page. So just let it go for now. Also, thank you for creating those SVGs, personally I appreciate it. - Best IapetusCallistus (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the Insight of A. Parrot could be vulnerable to this conversation due to him being a long time administrator focused of ancient Egypt but if it appears that most believe this image should not be included, I will concede. PharaohCrab (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

1897 image of Egyptian deities

I believe that PharaohCrab is acting in good faith and I do not believe the frog head represents Pepe. However, I think that this 1897 image by Henri Faucher-Gudin is far more appropriate than something concocted by a Wikipedia editor that looks like it is taken from a comic book. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, User: A. Parrot is not an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

opps PharaohCrab (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the Pepe resemblance was intended either, but it's how it ended up, and given the level of trolling that comes from other places concerning Kek and Pepe, it's an easy land mine to be avoided by using actual archeological images, free of reinterpretation. As for other representations int he style of Jeff Dahl, Im skeptical of the OR/sourcing/reinterpretation component. But that's a content issue. Acroterion (talk)

I agree with Cullen and the Bushranger that this is not obviously an image of Pepe, but it probably partakes too much of modern cartoon conventions. The relief that PharaohCrab cites does not portray Kek with green skin. But, per Acroterion, that's a content issue and probably belongs on the talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

understood i will not re-add the image for now, but i plan to revamp the image to address the issues mentioned here, and then we will have this conversation again. PharaohCrab (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If it isn't Pepe (which seems to be the conclusion now), then my apologies for any accusations I made. I obviously was mistaken. I've seen thousands of Pepes online and maybe all cartoon images of frogs bare a resemblance to him in my mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's mainly a product of some unfortunate history with that article and the alt-right, some influence of popular culture (not all frogs are Kermit-green), and a poor understanding of RS and SYNTH by PharoahCrab, all based on efforts to expand on the attractive but academically-dubious graphics done by Phil Bridger. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean done by Phil Bridger? im taking credit for this garbage PharaohCrab (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with it. On this point I agree with you, PharaohCrab. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Continuous arguements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Before I start, I am familiar with WP:Boomerang and am fine with whatever the actions against me are, especially for my recent aggressive name-calling edits. For the past few weeks, Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and me (DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) have been engaged in continuous arguements related to various articles in WP:WikiProject Doctor Who. Some of the most recent of these can be seen here, here, here and here (also see this while we are at it). I'm sick and tired of this, as can be seen from me losing my cool and insulting them and telling them to "fuck off" among other colourful langauge. I didn't where else to go, bcs WP:DRN came to mind, but they only deal with contributions, not contributors. I'm fine with any actions against me, just make it stop. Thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

DoctorWhoFan91, don't you think that exercising self-control and stopping lashing out is a better solution than some sort of sanction imposed upon you? What is the best case you see coming out of bringing this problem to ANI? What solution are you looking for that you and Alex 21 couldn't do on your own? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I do think exercising self-control is better, but it's been going on for too long. The best case I see is he actually listens to policy instead of wikilawyering here(by reason of MoS when MoS is only for articles, and making 19 edits with the edit summary "Fix mistake in dashes by User:DoctorWhoFan91 after it was brought to their attention") and here(and trying to cite an unreliable ref); being passive-aggressive and trying to keep a marginally unreilable source on wikipedia here, trying to reintrouce a marginally unreliable ref here("now that the FLC has passed, I'll go ahead and reintroduce that column"); and when another editor brought up the point that mass formatting changes were made and should have been asked at the WikiProject first, being passive-aggressive and intentionally misinterpreting her("Stating that edits must be discussed by you to be accepted is also a very concerning development.") I linked the discussions for a reason- did I need to write more before someone decided to read them before asking questions? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

in short, an interaction ban, either one-way or two-way. I'm gonna stop interacting with him even in the case an iban does not happen. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Editors argue and disagree about much. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, it's all opinions. I've not once lost my own cool or said any insulting language towards you. If you don't like my opinions, then I apologize to you for that face, but you're not forced to listen to them. In my time here, I've not decided to start targeting a single new editor I barely interact with outside the one WikiProject. Move on, stop trying to get the last jab in. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This is just not acceptable. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You are passive-aggressive and you are unhelpful bcs of that. Pathetically was too much, I agree and apologise, and I'm okay with any sanctions about it, as long as the integrity of the site is kept. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong when you try to keep and add unreliable sources, and wikilawyer, and misinterpret others, and respond passive-aggressively. I do have to listen to them when your words are "now that the FLC has passed, I'll go ahead and reintroduce that column", or do you want me to wait until you actually add the unreliable ref. No, of course not, you just attack everyone that disagrees with you. I have moved on several times, the above links aren't the only times this has happened, it's just that your reponses have grown more concerning. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have not once attacked an editor I've disagreed with. Arguing and disagreeing are not attacks. Pings in an expired discussion of "see, I told you so" is just not contributive either, and calling 44 edits "mass changes" is just facetious. I have given you advice of editing I have gathered over a decade, and it is you who has decided to simply do the opposite of each suggestion - that wasn't my choice. Apology accepted for the unnecessary remark on such an important page above, and I've already given mine above as well. So, again: just move on. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue here, and seeing that concerns about the suggestion of the addition of unreliable sources is not taken seriously(one of which is in direct opposition to the changes made for WP:FL) before questions are asked- might as well close this. I'm just gonna ask other editors what changes are needed when they are needed, if non-collaborative editors are not to be reprimanded. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't usually get involved in matters such as these, but I feel moved to comment here. I have been witness to Alex's edits across multiple years, and he is by far the best WP:GAMEr I have ever seen. He knows exactly how to manipulate the system to force his every whim on articles, and is habitually obstinate and condescending towards less experienced (i.e. most) editors. He is very aware of how he comes across, and how it can frustrate to the point of (undefendable, but understandable) outbursts such as DoctorWhoFan91 has fallen foul of lately, as this has been pointed out to him countless times. It is really sad to see further evidence of Wikipedia's lack of any mechanism to effectively combat such behaviour, which discourages editors from getting involved in the project. U-Mos (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have diffs to provide evidence of this behavior? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Would it be violating an iban in the caze of me providing the diffs, in case u-mos does not respond? It might be considered interacting with the editor's edits, but I if it's fine, I could, to get this discussion to close/get archived faster. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sending some diffs from the discussions I linked to above, just to get this to close asap-[50](was followed by 19 edit summaries pinging me by name), [51](misunderstanding a statement that implies that production info without source in a secondary unreliable source is likely to be a rumour to infer that I'm saying that only primary sources should be used), [52], [53], [54](wikilawyering(that too with incorrect logic) to keep a marginally unreliable ref), [55], [56](speaking of reverting a change that was made for FLC of which he was pinged twice-once before the change, and one after, and then lying that he wasn't told), [57], [58](being non-collaborative and then disparging an editor for suggesting that a change that affected a 100 articles should have been discussed before it was made). @The Bushranger.

Please just get this closed asap, yours was the only constructive edit here in this whole thread towards any action(as the rest were either the other editor or me or people providing more evidence, or an "attempt" by another admin at dispute resolution). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Stumbled on this ANI discussion while searching through some of DWFan's contributions earlier. Was initially not gonna comment because DWFan seemed keen to get this over with, but given U-Mos's reply above, I may as well add that I am very much in agreement that Alex_21 has been very problematic. He has repeatedly attempted GAMEing via attempting to re-add unreliable sources despite consensus against using them on multiple occasions, including as part of the post-FLC discussion acknowledged in the nom, has been consistently hostile and uncooperative toward users he disagrees with, and is overall a net-negative to communication on the site as a whole.

One example includes the current GT nom DWFan is referring to, where Alex had a dash issue. DWFan fixed many of these, but after stating that a bot would resolve the last of the issues, Alex admonished him in a very unforgiving manner and then proceeded to fill out around twenty edit summaries consisting of "Fix mistake in dashes by User:DoctorWhoFan91 after it was brought to their attention", assuming bad faith of DWFan in a very passive aggressive manner when DWFan had not done anything incorrectly. The behavior at the GT nom resulted in another, entirely uninvolved editor questioning Alex's hostility. There's other comments in that discussion, but I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty since that's all present to be read.

On top of that, while reading other editors' talk pages in the past, I've stumbled on many outright accusatory or demeaning comments from him. His responses at User_talk:DoctorWhoFan91#2025 WikiCup for example resulted in an accusation of Wikipedia:Canvassing towards both the nom and another user, and stated that both were failing to work collaboratively because they disagreed with him (This is despite the fact both had been collaborating together to improve an article together as part of Wikipedia:WikiCup). His messages at User_talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive_2#Warning templates are also just blatantly demeaning, with statements like "I could cite my own hundreds of thousands of edits and over a dozen GA's, but that's not relevant. You ever heard of the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?" treating the user as inferior despite the fact they too have several thousand edits and because they were less senior than Alex was. This behavior is repeated in multiple discussions, including at the discussion I linked at the nom's talk page, and in many discussions in the nom's initial statement.

I'd highly recommend reading through some of the above discussions, given how blatantly bad faith and/or passive-aggressive some of the comments are, as this is consistent behavior not exclusive to just interactions with the nom, though they're most frequent with them as a result of the more heavy-handed interactions the two have had. I will clarify that while I understand the nom's reason for their outbursts, I do not necessarily defend them, and if anything should be done about that, I have no strong thoughts on the matter. Regardless, though, I believe Alex is just generally uncooperative with his fellow editors, demeaning to their actions when he disagrees with them, and constantly attempts to force his own agenda, even when they go against established consensus. His behavior is detrimental to communication overall, and I'd support some kind of action being taken against Alex as a result. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

DoctorWhoFan91's lashing out was inappropriate, but the attitude repeatedly expressed by Alex_21 of "If you wish to not be educated as a newer editor and refuse to discuss material, simply let me know" in Pokelego999's links above is extremely condescending and rude. Toadspike [Talk] 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is just to clarify a point, I'm not coming back to this discussion in general. This kind of bends the iban(which could someone make formal, editing restrictions put on myself by myself are not restricting enough), so I will say "the other editor". There was a dash issue at the GT nom(I used the hyphen instead of the en-dash), which the other editor brought to my attention. Seeing that 20 pages would be affected by a move, and the hyphens were in the talk space, I didn't do it, as MoS only applies to articles, and given that the nom header is only there till it passes or fails. And seeing that it was just me and him with no other editors saying anything one way or the other, and his other discussions with me for the past week was that he wanted to add marginally unreliable refs back(which again, one was him covertly trying to go back on a change for FLC). There was no talk of a bot fixing it, I just wondered if there was a way for the changes to be made on all the pages at once, given that they were the same, bcs I have seen mass changes, but didn't know if/how it was possible. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, bcs all the other editors are bringing it up and I don't want it to get lost in all the text, my behaviour was undefendable and inappropriate, that's why I came here, and accepted any actions that could be taken against me. I don't want to lash out, but there is a limit, and for me it's the threat to perform actions contrary to the integrity of this site. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I would point out that I have never actually added an unreliable source to an article, and have begun a multitude of discussions to discuss the reliability and appropriateness of the source first. If I were deliberately ignoring other editor and going ahead to do so, I would agree that that would be an issue. Further, asking an editor to fix their mistake after they have become aware of it is not uncivil either - apologies if it has been taken as such. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Voluntary IBAN

Just want to state here in clear words that I have decided to stop interacting with the other editor. An admin can make it more formal, and maybe make it 2-way if they like. It's been 12 hours, and the only admin who have noticed this did not even read the discussions before asking me why I brought someone, among other things, deliberately and knowingly threatening to use marginally unreliable refs, one on an FL on which it was removed after it was suggested at FLC, and which the other editor was told of twice. Why ask for diffs and stuff if one of the admins does not even want to read them before she questions me why I brought it here, especially when I said that it's not a DRN matter. If I wait any longer, I would just reply to some of the replies of the other editor again, and I know it will be seen against me, bcs this works on social capital, and the other has over 100,000 edits over 10 years. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I will admit, I'm very confused on how to interact with this editor and their voluntary IBAN. The editor has posted this, listed themselves under IBANs, and then immediately interacted with the discussion I started by collapsing further replies after their own, adds an opinion to WP:CPP related to this, and posts a new discussion about my behaviour. I feel a further opinion here is necessary. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions does not come under iban, I believe- and it was unhelpful, no one needs to scroll down that much to read any future discussions. The CPP "opinion" isn't related to this, I just checked the page due to the situation, and saw that the nutshell does not completely conform to what is written on the page. The WT:DRWHO is not about a specific editor, though the examples are- I just don't want newccomers to deal with CPP; if the examples seem too close to my iban, I will remove them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted this, given that no admin wants to even acknowledge it or clarify it even after this long. I'll just keep fighting uncivil and uncollaborative behaviour on wikipedia- and when it inevitably blows over, we can all say that there was no way to prevent this, (bcs we like to ignore that we are incompetent in combating GAMEing behaviour, especially when we see editors who have been here a long time with a lot of edits). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2406:5900:107C:841B:0:0:0:0/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2406:5900:107C:841B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles and this is a long-term issue from this range - /64 has been blocked 3 times previously, most recently in November 2023 for 6 months with the block rationale of "Some outright vandalism, all edits dubious at best". /64 has previously blanked warnings without addressing concerns with their edits (examples: June 2024, July 2024 removing warning and writing "YOU suck", October 2024). Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Done. Another six months. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

Content moved from WP:AN

• Carlitoscarlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Despite me having written to him on his talk page (as suggested in the previous report I made), and despite me having listened to his "reasons" and made my latest changes according to his suggestions (see here, here, here and here), the user continues to revert my changes accusing me of "Vodafone LTA vandal". I reiterate once again that:

1) I am not an LTA

2) I do not act only on Vodafone pages (see my contributions, I edit pages related to many companies in all sectors, such as technology, telecommunications, insurance, energy and more).

I ask that he at least be notified on his talk page by an administrator. Thanks. InterComMan (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell their talk page is unprotected and indeed you posted there just yesteday so please notify themselves rather than expecting someone else to do it for you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've already written to him on the discussion page and I've also listened to him, so I don't understand what you mean. InterComMan (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

InterComMan, it's not difficult. YOU need to notify people if you drag them here; that is not an administrator's job. Also, I don't know what articles you're talking about specifically. I also don't understand what your edits are about, since you don't ever fill out an edit summary. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait--you did say "fixes", which doesn't explain much. And you reported the other user for vandalism? Drmies (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think that not specifying well what I do in my edits could be vandalism, in any case I apologize and will be more careful. InterComMan (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What you need to do is listen and stop bothering people. That’s why you were permanently blocked on Wikidata—because you wouldn’t listen and kept annoying other users. And that’s also why you were blocked twice on the English Wikipedia. Next time, they’ll block you indefinitely, so stop causing trouble; some of us devote a great deal of our valuable time here. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlitoscarlos, you should explain who this LTA is and why you think this editor is that LTA. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This user is a sockpuppet of the globally blocked user GM-27IT, who has a pending case on Wikidata to report all of their sockpuppets (Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/GM-27IT). They are Italian and can be identified by the fact that they never edit on the Italian Wikipedia, as any incorrect information they publish there would be immediately reverted and lead to their ban (they are already well known in that community). They also avoid editing on the Spanish Wikipedia because, in the past, significant efforts were made to prevent their vandalism. Furthermore, their edits consistently involve Italian telecommunications companies, and using their various sockpuppet accounts, they repeatedly move or create the same articles. They also have a long track record of editing Vodafone-related articles both here and on Wikidata. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I have nothing to do with that user, just look at his edit history which is quite inconsistent with mine, in addition to the fact that from what I see he was a user who was also accused of personal insults, etc. which I have never done, and indeed I always seek dialogue, as evidenced by this discussion and others on my talk page.

On Wikipedia in Italian I do not intervene for the simple fact that I do not get along well with the user base that is part of it (I am not talking about administrators, but users), and also I prefer to edit on en.Wiki to better practice my English. On Wikipedia in other languages ​​I do my interventions, including the one in Spanish, even if rarely. InterComMan (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

For someone who supposedly always seeks dialogue, you’ve been indefinitely banned from Wikidata and blocked twice on the English Wikipedia for trying to force your false reality and for engaging in edit wars. And yes, you avoid editing the Italian Wikipedia because they know you well there; your information is incorrect, and it would be reverted instantly. Seriously, stop wasting people’s time—it's not unlimited. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

On WD I was banned indefinitely for something that happened only once (in fact it seems a bit exaggerated to me). And no, that's not the reason why I don't edit on it.Wiki, reread what I wrote above. InterComMan (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Per User_talk:Carlitoscarlos#Fastweb_+_Vodafone, this honestly just looks like a content dispute with some pretty heavy allegations (vandalism, long term abuse/global block evasion) getting thrown around (without any evidence or diffs to support it). I think Carlitos' response to InterCom's message on his talk page raises a few conduct questions on Carlitos' part, while there may be a lack of AGF on InterCom's part. jellyfish ✉ 21:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If you carefully read everything InterComMan has written in this section, you’ll see that he has contradicted himself in a way that supports my position. Despite claiming he “doesn’t get along with the Italian Wikipedia community,” InterComMan has zero recorded edits on that project, making it impossible for him to have had any meaningful conflicts there. He also insists he “always seeks dialogue,” yet has been indefinitely banned on Wikidata and blocked multiple times on English Wikipedia for repeated edit warring or refusing to cooperate—hardly the mark of someone who consistently engages in constructive discussion. While he minimizes his indefinite ban on Wikidata as “something that happened only once,” indefinite bans are rarely imposed for minor, isolated incidents. Equally concerning, although he says he merely “makes articles more concise,” diffs show large portions of sourced content about company mergers being removed outright. In the end, there’s none so blind as those who will not see. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

On Wikidata I was blocked because for some strange reason after a certain point I didn't receive notifications on the discussion page (initially in fact yes, and you can see for yourself even to a message I had replied), in fact I was blocked with the reason "edit warring" and not for being an LTA as you accuse me. InterComMan (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Look, you’re getting blocked for edit warring because when you add false information or fail to use the correct templates, other users revert your edits, and then you repeat the same changes. That behavior constitutes edit warring. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but we were talking about you calling me a LTA, not about the edit wars. Don't divert the subject, thanks. InterComMan (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, you are the one who cancels with the excuse "these are changes that come from it.Wiki and have already been validated". The fact that they come from it.Wiki does not necessarily make them correct, and moreover "validated" by whom? InterComMan (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the article in the Italian Wikipedia is semi-protected because anonymous users were coincidentally posting the same information you’re trying to add in the English Wikipedia, and it was naturally reverted. In the end, it was semi-protected to prevent falsehoods from being inserted. I’m not new to this. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

In that case they did well to semi-protect it, it was full of IPs that often inserted random information, from what I see, and in any case it does not mean that the information is verified, taking into account the fact that then my last changes were made following YOUR advice, that is, removing the closing date of FW and VF and putting FW + VF as a simple "corporate brand". So what would be the wrong information that I insert? InterComMan (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Either you’re pretending not to notice or you don’t realize that you’ve practically removed all the information about the merger from the History section, which was properly referenced. I know you’re doing this for fun because it’s nothing new—you’ve been at it for four years. Seriously, stop bothering the people who contribute to the project. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't remove them, I just made them more concise, also because there is not much to say beyond the announcement of acquisition and completion. Also I have not been on Wiki for 4 years but almost 1 year. InterComMan (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you'll permit me to interrupt - is this not eligible for WP:SPI? I feel like we should be more certain whether this is an LTA so as not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 22:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The noticeboard report wasn’t filed by me but by InterComMan, which is why it’s here—he filed it against me. I didn’t report him at WP:SPI because I like to give the benefit of the doubt and try to resolve things first. However, since that now seems impossible, I’ll have no choice but to file a report at WP:SPI. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlitoscarlos, as of now, you haven't opened a complaint at WP:SPI so until you do and your suspicions are confirmed, please stop putting "Vodafone LTA vandal" in your edit summaries and casting aspersions at InterComMan in noticeboard or talk page comments. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Hesselp, again (4th ANI notice)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since October 2024, Hesselp started a disruptive behavior on Exponential function and Talk: Exponential function that is very similar of the one for which he was indefinitely banned for editing about series (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#User:Hesselp again).

In the article, this disruptive behavior consists of adding controvesial content to the article and, then, edit-warring for keeping his controversial changes. These edit wars are conducted in a way such that 3RR is formally respected and they may appear as content dispute to people who do not know the subject.

In the talk page, the disruptive behavior consists mainly in walls of text that can be summarized as "I am not competent in mathematics, but the few things that have learnt from my random readings must be verbatim in the article".

Before Hesselp's edits, the article was not in a good shape, and it was a fructful discussion for improving it. This has been stopped by Hesselp behavior. There is a consensus on the talk page that the current state of the article is worse than before (@Jacobolus, Quantling, and Malparti:)

My opinion is that Hesselp must be, at least, indefinitely banned form editing mathematical articles and their talk pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Special:Diff/1260791212 and Special:Diff/1260795817 (on Talk:Exponential function) are direct violations of the topic ban on editing "articles on or related to mathematical series as well as the article talk pages on or related to the mathematical series in question". It's not merely that the exponential function is commonly defined as a series, but the first comment writes as a formula the usual series for the exponential function (commenting that certain assumptions would make it "not exponential") and the second comment directly refers to the series definition. But since the previous topic ban did not curb the problematic behavior a broader ban seems warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If they're just going to ignore the topic ban, a block seems to be the next step. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hesselp violated also the topic ban in the main space by repeatedly adding to Exponential function a (poorly written) section comprising the series expansion of a function: 2 December 2024, 8 December 2024, 25 January 2025. In these edits, the series is not presented as an infinite sum (as usual), but as the limit of its partial sums; this seems a way for allowing arguing that this is not a formal violation of the topic ban. D.Lazard (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's an evident topic-ban violation. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

October 2026? The AP (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I fixed the typo in my preceding edit D.Lazard (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I've now done some math homework, and understand that the infinite sum of a series is the limit of its partial sums (at least I now know that that is the definition--don't ask me for more math!) Given that, and the editing restriction Hesselp [?] (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all articles on or related to mathematical series. This is understood to include all articles on mathematical series, those who developed them, theories on mathematical series, practical applications and uses for mathematical series, etc, as well as the article talk pages on or related to the mathematical series in question. Additionally, in order to affect a timely halt to any disruptive behavior arising from this topic ban administrators may at their discretion adopt a 1RR position for any mathematical article Hesselp has edited or contributed to provided that there is clear evidence of disruptive behavior from the editor. This topic ban shall be in effect until community consensus at ANI or ARBCOM rule otherwise.

Given that, I am asking Hesselp to explain their actions. If we do not get a suitable explanation, or if the behavior continues without explanation, the user should be blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the previous ANI discussion that imposed the topic ban was already in response to their violation of a narrower topic ban. They have already had plenty of rope. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Intending to answer on rsjaffe, within 72 hours from now, I suppose I'm free to use the word - and to write about - 'series' here. For this ANI-page isn't mentioned in my topic ban 7 Nov. 2017. I'm wrong? Objections? Hesselp (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:BANEX, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum is permitted. Please reply here, not on my user talk page. Any edits to math pages prior to the resolution of the discussion here may result in an indefinite block.

Also, @David Eppstein, feel free to block now if you feel it is warranted. Again, as a new admin, I am trying to stay on the conservative side, but recognize that actions may properly be taken by other admins in situations in which I am still gathering information. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Trying to define the ban narrowly has not worked, so we should either ban this editor completely or at least from anything to do with mathematics, broadly construed of course. The latter would still leave the vast majority of Wikipedia available. Any page that is at all mathematical could easily be twisted into containing content about series, which is what they seem to have a problem with. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking on the walls of text they wrote on talk:exponential function, this is clearly with all mathematics that they have a problem with. I support a ban from anything related with mathematics. However, I am not sure this would be sufficient, because they show a clear misundestanding of basic language; see how they were happy to learn the meaning of "characterization". D.Lazard (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there would be in practice any difference between a complete ban and a ban from mathematics. On a quick scan through their contributions I don't see anything that is not concerned with mathematics. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point someone needs to block his butt. That’s not up for discussion, we need - repeat, NEED - to show that violating community sanction results in a block. After the block has been imposed we can continue the discussion about redefining the topic ban if need be. Frankly, given the way the topic ban was worded, I find it insulting that he’s still being allowed to edit. For Pete’s sake people, show some damn backbone here. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:8D4A:AEAA:D437:48A9 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

One thing I learned pretty quickly as an admin is that taking your time when you can and waiting a bit for further developments helps clarify things. And there's ways to take some time without causing undue harm along the way. Note that the editor in question is already halted, just not with a formal block. This way we can take definitive action after due process, instead of doing things piecemeal. If I didn't have backbone, I'd have blocked the editor after the first post in this thread, which strongly requested action. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

My two cents: exponential functions are not series, they are functions - they can be generated by a series, but so can a lot of mathematical objects. You can calculate pi using a series, but that doesn't mean editing Pi would fall under the editing restriction as it's written (in my view, anyway). I think a block based on this would be unfair. I think a warning along with widening the topic ban to mathematics in general would be the correct response. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This would be fair if Hesselp did not repeat exacly the same disruptive scheme about exponentiation as seven years ago about series. I did not open the thread because he did not respect the ban, but because of their disruptive edit; it is only when preparing the ANI that I learnt that they wee banned. Nevertheless the previous bans show that, at least, a wider ban is required. D.Lazard (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That's beside the point, because Hesselp explicitly talked about series. See Special:Diff/1260791212 and Special:Diff/1260795817. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

And also Special:Diff/1271633156. XOR'easter (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The function exp can be defined in more ways than using exponentation: by series, by the limit of compound interest and by continued fractions. - Yep you're right, can't argue with that one. Above post struck, they violated the tban. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: On rsjaffe's "I am asking Hesselp to explain their actions" (2 Feb.'25).
If admins are going to judge that the conditions of my ban INCLUDE the article Exponential function, I violated the ban with every edit since 10 October 2024. Although I doubt this is a correct interpretation, because it would mean that more or less any subject within calculus would be covered by the ban: 'infinite summation' and 'Taylor expansion' are cornerstones of all calculus. But the ban does not simply read: "all articles on calculus".   A complicating factor is the occurrence of "etc." at the end of the list of prohibited topics. Should this 'etc.' be read as: all articles with the word 'series' in the title?
In case the article 'Exponential function' is - in the eyes of admins - NOT INCLUDED in the ban, I’m free to write in Talk (referred to by David Eppstein, 27 Jan. 2025),  (a) "The function $exp$ can be defined in more ways than using exponentation: by series, by the limit of compound interest and by continued fractions.  All four should be mentioned...,", and  (b) "the function $\,x\mapsto \Sigma _{i=0}^{\infty }x^{n}/n!$  is not exponential", in a comment on the 'definition' by H.A. Lorentz.
And the ban doesn't forbid me either to use in the Article (referred to by D. Lazard, 28 Jan. 2025)  (c) the expression $\lim _{n\to \infty }a\sum _{i=0}^{i=n}(kx)^{i}/i\,!$, in a list of different ways to express a general exponential function.
In my view, editing by me in permitted articles, is not restricted by the current ban; of course as long as the content of the edit is relevant to the article.

On 'disruptive behavior' (referred to by D.Lazard, 26 Jan, 3 Feb).
My edits in the Article on section §General exponential functions in short:

2 Dec. 2024; see Summary
8 Dec.; revision/extension of version 2 Dec., see Summary, more sources
10, 10, 10, 19 Dec., 2 Jan. 2025; limited adaptations
5 Jan.; more logical order, see Summary
11, 11, 12, 12, 19 Jan.; limited changes/adaptations
24 Jan.; replacing subsection "Expressions for..." .

In Talk, this (fourteen) edits are accompanied by (twenty) edits with argumentations, discussions and draft versions - described by some users as 'walls'.  I leave it to admins to assess whether this editing should be seen as disruptive behavior justifying restrictive measures. As well as whether some of my edits on the Article page should be seen as forbidden edit-warring (referred to by D.Lazard, 26 Jan.). Imo, none of the 14 edits match the description given in WP:EW. Hesselp (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Addition to my edit directly above (4 Feb.). I can see the current version (28 Jan. 2025) as an acceptable result of my edits since 8 Dec. 2024. Isn't this enough to leave my current ban unaltered? Hesselp (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are unable to understand why there is a consensus here that your behovior is disruptive and why you are blocked or you have been blocked in French, German, Dutch and Swedish Wikipedia, nothing can be done for you. D.Lazard (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: Even in the situation you describe, I think -trying to do things better on WPen - I've the right to ask which ones (and why) of my fourteen plus twenty edits are considered as 'disruptive', and why exactly they are seen that way. Giving me the opportunity to explain my view (and/or to learn from it). Hesselp (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments on Hesselp's explanation

To assist me in closing this issue, please add below your comments regarding Hesselp's message posted immediately above. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

In particular, should there be:

1. no action or a warning
2. ban from all math topics, broadly construed
3. block from all of Wikipedia

We will keep this section open 24-72 hours, as this includes consideration of a community ban from math topics.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ban from all math topics. They made edits that didn't follow the topic ban, but they were close to the edges of it. If the edits were to, say, Series (mathematics), then I would say block, but as it stands I don't think it's blatent enough to warrant that. But it's to the point where the existing tban isn't working as intended, so it should be widened. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated position: Sitewide block - per their responses and wikilawyering below, they have no concept of what is or isn't allowed under their topic block, and widening the tban will just mean redoing this conversation again in a year or two. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ban from all math topics. I’d have supported an initial 24 block too, but that option appears to be off the table. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:94AA:D1AE:1D44:439 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Topic ban from math topics, broadly construed. Would not oppose indef.Siteban preferred, topic ban on all mathematics as second choice !vote changed per D. Lazard, below. Per WP:TOPICBAN, Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban... [is] "broadly construed". If Hesselp's response had been, "Oops, I didn't realize, I'll stop now", a warning would've been enough. Instead, this really seems like an attempt to "nibble around the edges" of the topic ban, so the topic ban should be expanded to prevent further disruption. I am also unconvinced that some of the edits in question don't count as edit warring; several have substantial content overlap, from what I can see. EducatedRedneck (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: Firstly. You write: "nibble around the edges". Please, can you be more concrete and answer with motivation on the following (for me crucial) questions:
-do you see the article 'Exponential functions' as belonging, according the text of the ban, to "all articles on or related to mathematical series" ? and
-if not, do you conclude that the text of the ban implies that I'm not allowed to use the word 'series' and the symbol Σ as I did ?
Secondly, on edit-warring. You write: "several have substantial content overlap". I understand that you have analyzed my fourteen relevant edits. Please mention the dates(times) of the edits meant by your 'several'. So that I can control whether I've motivated the 'essential overlaps' enough (on Talk) to avoid the label 'edit-warring', and possibly I can defend myself against your guesses. Hesselp (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe the passage I linked is quite clear. WP:BROAD may clear it up further. To humor you, no, the article itself does not trigger the topic ban, but any edit relating to mathematical series does. An edit of Isaac Newton rephrasing his use of power series would as well. As for edit warring, I don't have time at the moment to dig through all the diffs I looked at, but as three examples, edits #1 and #2 seem to introduce the same f(1)/f(0) notation. Since I don't accuse you of edit warring (merely say that I don't buy that you're cleared of it) I am not obligated to further WP:SATISFY you, and your approach above strikes me more as WP:WIKILAWYERING. D. Lazard's points below are well-taken. I have amended my !vote. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: With your (slightly paraphrased) "any edit relating to mathematical series triggers the topic ban" you confirm that, in your eyes, the text of my current ban forbids me to use the word 'series' (1x) and the symbol Σ (4x?) in the context in question. Please show where the text of my ban, and of WP:BROAD, supports your view.
As for edit-warring. The "$b\equiv f(1)/f(0)$" in my edit 24 Jan. had been there since 8 Dec.2024, without any revert. And the example "(e.g. $f(1)/f(0)$)" I introduced 5 Jan. 2025, had been deleted 15 Jan., and was replaced by me 19 Jan. somewhat smaller as (e.g. $f(1)/f(0)$) and motivated in my Summary with "The expression f(1)/f(0) returns in next subsection". This has, imo, nothing to do with 'substantial content overlap' and nothing with forbidden edit warring. So I should see it as correct, when you delete your sentence "I am also unconvinced ...". Hesselp (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll only note that I mislinked; it's WP:BROADLY, not broad. My mistake. As for the rest, see my above re: WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:SATISFY. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: You ask me once more: see WP:BROADLY, WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:SATISFY. I did so, again, but still I cannot find there why my use of the word 'series' (once) and the symbol Σ (at two different positions) in the context in question, is covered by my current ban. So once more: please show me where exactly I overlooked something. Hesselp (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you don't see how editing to add a mathematical series, after being topic banned from mathematical series, is a violation of the topic ban, then you may run afoul of WP:CIR. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can't see why making edits about series goes against your topic ban on series? This is the line of argument you're taking? I'm very close to changing my !vote on this BugGhost 🦗👻 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck @Bugghost The judgment in the original topic ban seems to fail to explain or point to what a topic ban is, and seems to contradict what a topic ban is as it mentions only articles and talk pages. @Hesselp I hope further sanction is not necessary if you can explain that you now understand the topic ban on series. The topic ban is not just on series articles or series talk pages, but absolutely any edit on any page including user pages if it has to do with mathematical series. Can you do that? Thanks! Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Most times a topic ban is enacted, it is not spelled out in detail. That's why WP:TOPICBAN exists. I don't buy that just because there was no wikilink, Hesselp couldn't be expected to be informed on what a topic ban is. EducatedRedneck (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

As policy wonks, we tend to think these are intuitive. But many wiki editors, such as Hesselp who is a non-EC math editor, these are quite arcane. I remember I too was confused about ECR applying to a user talk page last year, and had to navigate a lot of legalese to confirm that it is legitimate. I think ANI is doing a poor job educating editors on our rules, content or conduct. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I can see that, and in general, yes, a warning before enforcement sanctions is the right thing. In this case, I refer to my previous, If Hesselp's response had been, "Oops, I didn't realize, I'll stop now", a warning would've been enough. If their response to being told, "That's not allowed" is to wikilawyer, then it seems like a warning will just kick the can down the road, not deter disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho and EducatedRedneck: I surely understand now that I had to interprete "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive,"(WP:TBAN), in such a way that I shouldn't have written
- "the function $\,x\mapsto \Sigma _{i=0}^{\infty }x^{n}/n!$" (Talk 17:11, 2 Dec.), but (e.g.) "the function $\lim _{n\to \infty }(1+x/n)^{n}$ ";
- "The function exp can be defined in more ways than using exponentation: by series, by the limit of compound interest and by continued fractions." (Talk 17:41, 2 Dec.), but as (e.g.) "The function exp can be defined in more ways than using exponentation: by the limit of compound interest, by continued fractions, and more."
The expression $\lim _{n\to \infty }a\sum _{i=0}^{i=n}(kx)^{i}/i\,!$ (subsection 'Expressions for exponential functions', 19 Jan. and earlier) could be seen as a borderline case. This expression stands for: the limit of an sequence, but the symbol Σ is often used in the context of 'series'.
Did I made clear enough that I "now understand the topic ban on series"? Please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere. Hesselp (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Here are evidences of Hesselp's edit-warring: they introduced several new subsections in this edit (21:52, 2 December 2024). After reverts Hesselp restored them verbatim in the following edits: all subsections 23:43, 8 December 2024, subsection "Two meanings of 'base'" again 20:58, 5 January 2025, subsection "Expressions for exponential functions" again 00:53, 25 January 2025. Most edit-warring occurred in section "General exponential function" itself, but diffs are less clear because the reverts occurred after some other changes. D.Lazard (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{ping|D.Lazard} (1) On your "Hesselp restored them verbatim" . That 'verbatim' is not at all true for my edit 8 Dec.: I referred to the many differences with "revision/extension of version 2 Dec., see Summary, more sources" (above 4 Feb.).
(2) The subsection "Two meanings of 'base' " I restored verbatim (19:58, 5 Jan.), motivated on Talk (19:27, 5 Jan.) with: "The double meaning of 'base' deserves more emphasis; an example with concrete numbers instead of variables will be more convincing."
(3) On subsection 'Expressions for exponential functions'. D.Lazard removed this subsection 15:07, 22 Jan., motivated in his Summary by "section without other content than repetition without prose of formulas already given in the article". I replaced this subsection again, 00:53, 25 Jan., motivated one hour earlier in Talk 23:45, 24 Jan. by "Splitting up the article in a 'general' section, versus an extensive treatment of the function exp in the rest, is proposed/discussed on this talk page (e.g. 22, 24 Nov. 2024), without clear objections. A consequence is, imo, that a list of more or less usual expressions for the 'general' case should be shown in this section anyway, even if some of them (I found only one) occur in other places."
I leave to admins to judge whether this three cases has to been seen as forbidden edit-warring. Hesselp (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Restoring a text after a revert, without a consensus on the talk page is edit warring. Explaining your own motivations does not makes a consensus if nobody support them explicitely. So, you confirm having edit-warried, and the above explanations are nothing else than WP:WIKILAWYERING. D.Lazard (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I find disheartening their implication above that $a\sum _{i=0}^{i=\infty }(kx)^{i}/i\,!$ which is a textbook infinite series, is not okay to edit, but $\lim _{n\to \infty }a\sum _{i=0}^{i=n}(kx)^{i}/i\,!$ is only a "sequence", and thus "borderline" and might be okay. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Permanent block from all of Wikipedia. A topic ban from math topics would be fine for me since I edit almost exclusively math topics. But, for Wikipedia, it has two drawbacks: Firstly, when disruptive edits occur, such as in Talk:e (mathematical constant)/Archive 7, disruption is increased by the need of knowing the ban existence, searching its exact scope and asking administrators for enforcing the sanctions (in the linked archive, it took some time before the mention of the ban, and nobody took the time to open an ANI thread). Secondly, "broadly construed" does not provide a sufficient protection. For example, if Hesselp would be unhappy with the description of the exponential decay in, say, Radioactivity, I doubt that any of the watchers of this article would know about a topic ban from mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Good points. As Hesselp seems not to edit non-mathematical articles anyway we might as well do that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Permanent Ban on all of Wikipedia per above statements. User's past behaviors, having been a long term sockpuppet already, this being the 4th nomination relating to them, and appearing to immediately start disruptive actions after the unban applied, shows me they are highly unlikely to change. Some time off the site should do it for them. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@AIntrestingGuy: Please, can you explain what you mean with: "having been a long term sockpuppet already". I really don't understand it. Hesselp (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• No action or a warning. See Kenneth Kho 09:32, 7 Feb. and my reaction 14:55, 7 Feb.
  I'm afraid it's all over for me. All the best for WPen . Hesselp (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Conclusion Other than Hesselp, no one advocated for "no action or warning". Some considered a ban on Math, broadly construed, but there existed considerable concern that that would not be practical, given the editor's prior history with editing restrictions. I will indefinitely block Hesselp from editing here. I suggest Hesselp find a project where they are allowed to edit and develop a history of constructive edits without edit warring before considering appealing this block. Of the four others in which Hesselp has contributed significantly, DE is blocked, FR is blocked, SV was blocked but appears unblocked now, and NL only allows talk page edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Therealbey on Islam articles

• Therealbey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't want to bring this user here, as they appear to be goodfaith, but their editing is basically a mix of WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:RGW. Since being blocked from moving pages by ToBeFree last August, the user has demonstrated time and time again how that block was warranted. In November, they tried to bypass their block by performing a cut-and-paste move, which was thankfully noticed by Jay8g. After several failed unblock requests in which they were advised to come back after successful move requests, the user has requested many moves, not one of which was successful. Some of these moves were to move an English name to an Arabic name, however, most troubling, the user has embarked on an anti-Ahmadiyya crusade (is that too insensitive of a word? Maybe), which was noticed by GenoV84, and that Muhammad is worshipped in Hinduism. To advance the latter view, near-universally known as a fringe theory, they created the WP:POVFORK Muhammad in Hinduism, which, unsurprisingly, is at AFD and sprinting towards deletion. The user has also created other POVFORKS, such as Gulf of America, against consensus. Nawabmalhi described their edits as Wahhabist propaganda ([59]), after they added blatant attacks cited to a YouTuber to the Ahmadiyya article, under the guise of recent criticism ([60]). Even outside of this Ahmadiyya debacle, the user has been warned inordinate times for adding their personal POV into articles, just check the maze of warnings that is their talk page. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What!! When I perform "bypass" cut and paste move? My move request was accepted like In Prophets in Ahmadiyya or Jesus in Ahmadiyya. However GenoV84 moved it recently without giving any reasons and without talking about it because of his thinking that Jesus in Ahmadiyya should add the word "Islam" which the main parent title doesn't have. And it go against WP:CONCISE,WP:TITLECON and WP:COMMONNAMES

"the user has embarked on an anti-Ahmadiyya crusade" !! Seriously? Show me where I said something Anti-Ahmadiyya! I said mainstream Muslims don't consider them Muslims is it wrong with source I provided? Also the user GenoV84 had confusion that I am an Anti-Ahmadiyya which I am not at all and for the "confusion" he had I even said I didn't meant to hurts his beliefs.

You said I made a article and wanted to show "Hindus worshipped Muhammad" Where? It's a page on how Muhammad is mentioned in Hindu scriptures and also claims from various scholars and covers that not what you said!

I am not a Wahhabist at all! Associating me with a movement group from Saudi Arabia feels insulting to me, and I strongly condemn it!

Accusations given by @Chicdat are baseless and inaccurate!!! Therealbey (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry if I said anything inaccurate. I am simply quoting other editors, don't take that as an endorsement of what the editor said. I have made no accusations. When I said that not one of your move requests had been accepted, I was referring to the fact that those two article names have both been challenged by GenoV84. I wasn't talking about the actual close. You might be right, you might be wrong, that decision is left to the Wikipedia community. I think you're a good-faith editor and I don't want to see you blocked. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey

• You used ChatGPT to find sources, as evident from your this edit: {{Cite web |title=Prophet Muhammad in Hindu scriptures |url=https://www.quranproject.org/Prophet-Muhammad-in-Hindu-scriptures-398-d?utm_source=chatgpt.com}} See this edit.
• Why did you cite a non-reliable source, such as the Rampal cult website, as a reference? See this edit
• Could you also explain why referencing the Bhavishya Purana directly is not considered a primary source, as you claim? See here. Nxcrypto Message 15:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I used chatgpts Search engine tool for finding that specific topic from that specific website cause chatgpt search is a tool right? I knew that Quran project has coverd this topic so I used search feature for that specific website not only this one in another one I used it too for finding that books link to Amazon. I see nothing illegal here. Therealbey (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey, I did not ask for a response to my first point but I had requested your answers for my second and third points, which you completely ignored and did not address at all. Nxcrypto Message 19:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

For 2nd one I shared mentions of Muhammad and scholarly opinion such as Dr Zakir naik by his book on it but I think I have done mistake on that I ignored again by mistake about Rampal and I say sorry for that.

3rd. WP: PRIMARY mentions "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I did provided other secondary sources on that page. Therealbey (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey OK. Now, two questions arising in my mind.

1. Did you use AI to write article?
2. Did you use secondary sources for Bhavishya Purana ? Nxcrypto Message 03:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Yeah sometimes for small articles. In popular or trending article I don't remember I used.

2. Yes! I did like this book of Ved Prakash Upadhyay. Also there were more but was removed. Therealbey (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey So, did you use AI to write the Muhammad in Hinduism article?[61] NXcrypto Message 10:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No not the head part but yeah the claim section I used lit bit actually it's to decorate them with grammaretical. Tbh I am little weak on grammar so that's why I used it. Therealbey (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Then you need to avoid editing English Wikipedia altogether. Not just that, but you are editing main space articles, and ignoring all of the issues with your editing. That's unacceptable. NXcrypto Message 16:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I want contribute in Wikipedia. By fixing wherever I find mistakes and i created pages which are needed like Yunus ministry or Rafʿ al-Yadayn or Muhammad in Hinduism but okay i say sorry for any mistake I done and will remember about those before editing again. Therealbey (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

+ @Therealbey, I noticed that your recent edit overrides the linking which is not helpful. Could you please clarify the reason for this change? NXcrypto Message 14:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The link was already redirect to Ottoman Empire according to historical documents the Ottoman Empire didn't call themselves sultanate as official name although monarchs were sultans. I don't think this was accurate and as the link was redirected to Ottoman Empire page already. Therealbey (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• More to the point, the user in question has made numerous problematic edits, such as:

1. Citing an infamous Islamic scholar, i.e., Zakir Naik, from a random WP:YOUTUBE-EL source or persistently arguing for the inclusion of a WP:PRIMARY source, i.e., the Bhavishya Purana, as previously noted by Nxcrypto. All of this suggests that they are not here to build Wikipedia.
2. Providing an absurd justification for the above addition of Zakir Naik's opinion: Added one of the scholars who claims. This clearly demonstrates that they do not understand what WP:SCHOLARSHIP entails.
3. Repeatedly citing unreliable blogspots: [62][63][64].
4. Engaging in WP:VOTESTACKING for AfD: [65].
5. Boldly arguing here about Wikipedia's functionality while later contradicting themselves with a WP:OCON argument.
6. Creating poorly written, POV-ridden articles, one of which—AfD'd Andh Bhakt—had to go through two AfDs: [66] and [67]. Another, (Muhammad in Hinduism), is based on fringe theories from religious clergies.

These concerning edits by Therealbey are just a small sample from their last 500 contributions. A quick glance at their talk page, filled with warnings, gives a clear picture of their disruptive editing behavior. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow Zakir naik infamous! Therealbey (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In 5 you said I am contradicting myself? how actually? Therealbey (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Go through my above comment twice, if not thrice. Every relevant page and site is linked. Surely, you'll understand then, and I won't have to repeat myself. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 19:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sadly, the editor has a serious WP:CIR problem. Over and over, they've been told that they were pushing dubious or contentious material using non-reliable sources. Aside from their talk page, a major example of this drawn-out behaviour can be found at Talk:Caliphate, where you'll find a very patient Remsense (plus some comments from myself) trying to drill this point into Therealbey over two long discussions. Another example after that (mostly involving myself) is at Draft talk:Twelve revivers of Caliphate, where they continue to appear unable to understand the problem. Most recent edits to articles suggest that this behaviour has not improved; e.g., [68], [69] are all clearly contentious points that are cited exclusively to religious sites/opinions, including one on Youtube. R Prazeres (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think they are trying, but it is difficult to understand how to further help them when each point has to be explicitly repeated in every instance, and they do not seem to make logical connections that help them in the future. I don't feel comfortable weighing in for sanctions as someone who's both involved and imperfect (you can see in Caliphate's history that I temporarily made some basic errors in terms of provenance as well), but the track record does continue to lengtheb. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Proposal: Therealbey pblocked from mainspace and mentored

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For WP:CIR, WP:NPOV, and WP:IDHT issues, including serious sourcing problems in articles they have created, I propose that Therealbey be partially blocked from article space. Any articles Therealbey wishes to create would first have to go through the articles for creation process. An experienced editor should mentor Therealbey on how to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, so that if they learn what they need to learn, the block can be lifted.

• Support as nom. The user should especially work on their English. Note that a sockpuppet investigation on Therealbey is currently ongoing at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per entire discussion above. Regardless of the outcome of the SPI, this sanction is much needed to deal with the ongoing issues with this editor. NXcrypto Message 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, per all of the above. Though please note (if relevant) that I am involved in some of the disagreements with this editor (noted in my comment above). R Prazeres (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support A huge amount of their editing is obvious tendentious POVPUSHING. Indef block from mainspace seems like a minimum sanction to prevent further disruption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support due to the editor's obvious lack of competence and self-evident conflict of interest ([70][71][72][73]), and the current sockpuppet investigation doesn't surprise me either. GenoV84 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support blocking from the article namespace. There are serious WP:CIR concerns, and this editor has been repeatedly disruptive throughout their history on Wikipedia. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Do we have any volunteer mentors? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• After reading talk:Caliphate i support pblocking from mainspace because of, well, an inability or unwillingness to read and understand what is being said. As far as Liz's question goes, i am by no means an expert on the subject at hand but my talk page is always open should Therealbey wish to drop by and query if a proposed course of action is wise or good or acceptable; not exactly mentoring, but happy to offer guidance ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP: 210.3.50.94

Hi, I wanted to report this IP as they have been adding unsourced information to 2024–25 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season repeatedly, even after being told to stop by multiple users. This is my first time reporting something so i apologize if i am doing it incorrectly. Looking at their past edits, this seems to be a behavioural pattern as a lot of their edits have been reverted.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.3.50.94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sria-72 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sria-72 You must alert the IP editor of this report. See the pink notice box at the top of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I did. Sria-72 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait nevermind, my edit didnt save, oops. I will notify them now. Sria-72 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that Sria-72 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sria-72,

Rather than being about unsourced content, mostly what I see yesterday is that they were in an edit war with User:2001:67C:2710:F205:6CE1:2798:2CD3:1F3D over one edit. Can you highlight what 2 or 3 edits you found inappropriate? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

They actually started this earlier. This is the first edit they made to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024–25_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season&diff=prev&oldid=1274374050. I had to revert this several times before sending them a message on their talk page telling them that there isn't any official agency that classified the storm as a VITC. They then changed it again, knowing what they were doing was wrong, and said "ban me" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024–25_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season&diff=prev&oldid=1274415331. they did this twice, now using the joint typhoon warning center's 1-min sustained winds and putting a value which is blatantly incorrect and not stated in the source that is used for the section (see: https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/ATCF/JTWC/bsh132025.dat) if it were actually a category 5, there would be a 140 kt wind value (at the 8th column, not counting the only comma columns) Sria-72 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sria-72, thank you for supplying these, it helps to have concrete examples to consider. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Bbt400

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bbt400 (talk · contribs) - despite multiple warnings and 4 previous blocks for edit warring, socking, and adding unsourced content to BLPs, this editor continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Another diff from today. NB a source was eventually added, 13 hours later... GiantSnowman 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked them to come and comment here. But seeing that they last posted to a talk page in 2021 and have never posted to a project page, I don't expect them to respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

And they are still adding unsourced content to BLPs after your generous invitation... GiantSnowman 09:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Giant, I blocked them for this reason for 2 weeks. I know they are likely to return but this seemed like a decent length of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant WP:PA by BANSHEK

• BANSHEK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accusing me and other editors of being from Sangh Parivar, [74] see its meaning on wikitionary [75]. This user also seems to be involved in sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BANSHEK. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• As an insult that's really rather vague and direction-less. The user is not operating with a lot of good faith, but this is not a matter for admin intervention--yet. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Koshuri Sultan, you filed the SPI, Drmies looked it over and didn't find cause to block this editor so "seems to be involved" is heavy on the "seems". If every editor who has been accused of socking were treated as if they were socking, well, many of our established editors would be blocked (including myself). Suspicions aren't reality until a Checkuser confirms it is so. At least in my eyes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz I know, I used “seems” as it was not confirmed that they were socking, they were only suspected to be socks. I didn't mean to falsely accuse anyone or make them feel bad, I filed this ANI before Drmies checked the SPI. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand, Koshuri Sultan. It's just that it's easy to suspect sockpuppetry (I was once suspected a long, long time ago), but suspicions aren't confirmation. You were right to open an SPI to see if there is confirmation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Constantly being stalked by User:SerChevalerie

• SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll admit it, but this is the only editor who has caused me so much mental health problems due to his obsession over me that I had a self imposed wikibreak of over 4 months. He has been constantly stalking me ever since he has returned back to editing 7 months ago in June 2024, you can see our first interaction here [76] [77]

This continued for over two months on several articles especially the once that I created untill I took a break. I had posted about this much more in detail over this lengthy past report about this same editor, see here.

Given his undisclosed COI and suspected undisclosed paid COI issues, I don't think he's here to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and properly coordinate with other editors and seems to try to dominate in conversations, as you can see here for an example [78]. This is a article that he created on his grandfather and despite being warned and told many times he continues editing the article and likely seems he'll continue to do in the future too.

I can give many diffs of his recent stalking behaviour too, as you can see in these articles where usually SerChevalerie has less to no editing history pertaining to that article, but he usually stalks me everyday to see which articles I have edited to so that he can edit it later. See [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

His behaviour to stay at the "top of the article" reminds me of this former editor. I simply can't stand being watched over 24×7 by SerChevalerie, where at this point it simply looks like he wants me to quit Wikipedia by continuously following me around and seeing what I'm upto. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time that I am being dragged to ANI for absolutely no reason and honestly I am tired. I have shared before, and so have other people pointed out, that we are both active members of WP:GOA, and hence there is bound to be some overlap.

1. I have watchlisted Vamona Navelcar since I am the biggest contributor to the article, and Rejoy here does not leave an edit summary, inclining me to go and check what changes are done.
2. I recently created the article on Save Mollem, which led me to the article of Goa Foundation, which in turn led me to its founder Norma Alvares.
3. I recently created the article on Victoria Fernandes, who happens to be the mother of Rodolfo Fernandes (politician), which led me to his page.
4. User themselves admitted that we are both part of a WhatsApp group to coordinate efforts for WP:GOA, which led me to São João Festival in Goa. I have also marked my edit summary with WP:AGF.

No one WP:OWNs an article here:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone.

I also do not see the reason behind these repeated attempts to have me WP:OUTED here given that I have not disclosed my personal identity on Wikipedia. There are already Talk page discussions and an ongoing discussion at WP:COIN, and the previous ANI discussion also received the appropriate replies.

Concerns with Rejoy's editing

1. User Rejoy's editing has its own issues, as can be seen with the WP:SYNTH and WP:BLPPRIVACY issues at JoeGoaUk, see the discussion at Talk:JoeGoaUk#Possible WP:SYNTH, definite WP:BLPPRIVACY violation.
2. Further, Rejoy used a WP:BLPPRIMARY source on dozens of WP:BLP pages, which I then reverted, as can be seen here. I can understand that this can feel like WP:HOUNDING, but I have done my best to take care and inform the user, as seen at User talk:Rejoy2003/Archive 5#Routine cleanup of WP:BLPPRIMARY violations on WP:GOA pages, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Irene Vaz.

SerChevalerie (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

First ANI discussion, which got archived without action a couple of days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1177#On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by User:SerChevalerie. Daniel (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) It kinda feels like the stalking is going the other way here. Rejoy's constant COI complaints look to be evidence-less aside from SerChevalerie being the primary writer on some articles. Their edits seem harmless against Rejoy's too (minor fixes), so I'm not sure why Rejoy feels so harassed. If the off-wiki stuff is really bad, WP:ARBCOM can help with that. Conyo14 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that almost every human being has mental health challenges to a greater or lesser extent. I certainly feel that that the events of 2025 might drive me crazy, but I, like millions, work hard to stay level headed and in control. Many Wikipedia editors with self-admitted mental health challenges do excellent work without serious problems. Each Wikipedia editor is responsible for ensuring that their mental health issues do not interfere with their productive editing, and playing the "I've got mental heal issues" card is not a move that works repeatedly. In this case, in their first sentence, Rejoy2003 not only plays the mental health card, but also accuses SerChevalerie of having Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Unless Rejoy2003 is a licensed mental health professional who has examined and diagnosed SerChevalerie and obtained their consent to disclose such a diagnosis, then that is an utterly inappropriate thing to say about another editor. So, Rejoy2003 can either control themself, or we will have to impose restrictions on their editing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Beyond Cullen328's sensible comments, some other things to parse. There are five other "active" participants in WP:GOA beyond the two involved here. Two of them have only seven mainspace edits between them in the last six months. The other three have barely touched Goa-related articles in recent months. To quote from SerChevalerie on Rejoy2003's concurrent complaint on the COI noticeboard, "Goa and WP:GOA are very small, and we already have very few people here, especially in the latter." No bloody kidding there's going to be a lot of overlap, the same way that in the ice hockey Wikiproject, a number of the same names have been cropping up for twenty years now. I'm going to feel less hard done by when Masterhatch or Alaney2K or Good Day or Flibirigit alter one of my edits, than to recognize that they're among the likely candidates to do so.

Rejoy2003 needs to ratchet down the hyperbole, and do so fast, because from here in the cheap seats, with SerChevalerie being brought up on multiple noticeboards, the harassment looks like it's coming from the other direction. Ravenswing 05:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• User:Rejoy2003, if you are part of an editing interest group on a specific subject that boils down to just two editors, I think if you want to continue to focus on articles on Goa, you have to find a way to get along with the other editor who focuses on this subject instead of trying to get them kicked off the project. It takes work to get along with editors you have differences with but continuing communication helps.

If every editor who had a dispute with another editor came to ANI to get their "opponent" blocked from editing, admins couldn't keep up with the discussions. Since there doesn't seem to be evidence of any misconduct here, if you want to continue editing, you have to find a way to collaborate together or change your editing interest to work on different articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, I don't mind him creating articles related with Goa. The thing here is that he's always so critical about what I articles I create and edit to. If you see our past history, I have barely edited articles created by SerChevalerie or anything that he has edited recently. I don't go around and stalk others like what he does to me.

I find this so much irritating, but If the community could place WP:Sanctions on him on the articles I create, I can promise myself I won't bring any complaint about him again. His "constant interfering", might lead me to the point that I might hurt myself. It's beyond annoying for me to deal with.

I have been one of the most significant contributors to WP:GOA, not to brag. But ever since this guy has come back editing after 4 years, I don't feel the same. I think sanctions placed on him can help. This might be much beneficial before something turns dirty and either one of us gets banned.

Not to forget about "his misconduct here", looks like I have to take to to WP:COIVRT to get it solved. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here, as mentioned by others, this really does look like the harassment is going the other direction. And that link there at the end also makes this look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Rejoy, who also is giving off hints of ownership behavior (If the community could place WP:Sanctions on him on the articles I create) and honestly comes across as attempting to guilt-trip admins (His "constant interfering", might lead me to the point that I might hurt myself.) - which is that is really the case a reminder that Wikipedia is not therapy might be in order, and either way they should consider dropping the stick before a boomerang comes around. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we are sure as hell NOT going to do that. I've just looked over all the diffs you link above, the ones you allege are driving you to self-harm. And I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing. You're really asserting that heinous actions such as putting a name in brackets or adding in a source constitutes sanction-worthy "harassment?" You're really claiming that your unsubstantiated allegations of COI constitutes proof? You're really suggesting that, despite the number of templated messages you've dropped on his talk page and the multiple noticeboards to which you've reported him, he is "stalking" you? [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] You've made as many edits to his talk page as he has! Ravenswing 06:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that faced with a boomerang Rejoy2003 seems to have come down with a sudden case of ANI Flu of the "editing everywhere but here" variety. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Alas, WP:NOMED enjoins me against tendering him advice for that ailment. Such a pity. In any event, it looks like with this heap of meritless OP, this can be safely closed. Ravenswing 02:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Either way, you shouldn't had to call me "meritless" which counts to a personal attack. Your comment here seems very unhelpful to ANI, speaking in general. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you intend on addressing the various issues pointed out here? NewBorders (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Your original post is meritless, you are guilty of the very behavior you decry, that you apparently feel that you WP:OWN these articles is headshaking, and that it's escaped your notice that sentiment here is running unanimously against your POV is self-defeating. I strongly urge you to quit while you're behind, because the next step is advocating dropping a one-way iban on you from interacting with SerChevalerie. Think through the implications of that. Ravenswing 07:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Engage01: 2nd ANI notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Engage01 was blocked on January 10 by User:ScottishFinnishRadish following an ANI notice grought forth by User:Departure–. The first complaints were "not understanding WP:DUE", WP:IDONTHEARYOU, WP:PERSONALATTACKS at Talk:Palisades Fire and my own talk page here, blanking content without adequately explaining why. WP:3RR and WP:BLUDGEONING.

Engage has received four warnings personal attacks here, here, here and here. \

Engage received warnings from User:Leafy46 against "misleading editing summaries" here and here, and one warning against "GA drive by" here.

Instead of acknowledging the warnings and attempting to reckon with them, Engage just blanks everything ever posted on their talk page almost immediately and continues to make personal attacks.

Today he has come to my talk page to make personal attacks and claim WP:OR ownership over the location of a random concert that occurred in 2011. I have justified the reason for a self-revert but Engage appears to be playing chicken in a WP:3RR contest.

Engage leaves multiple messages on my talk page about how I am "annoying" and I should leave them alone but any reasonable person could see that this is a vice-versa situation.

Leafy46 has gone to great lengths to treat Engage01 as someone who is here to build an encyclopedia and has offered to "clean the slate", and Engage has played along. Engage even asked Leafy46 to come to my talk page to make me stop, but Leafy46's conclusion was they wouldn't endorse Engage's position. Leafy46 introduced the question of geolocation which I had not considered, but almost immediately Engage01 dismissed that and used WP:OR to claim that a performance that is obviously pictured on stage was located inside a radio studio. Then he said "Glad there is much interest in something kind of trivial. Let's all move along now."

I'll let others weigh in and the administrators decide what the resolution to this dispute will be, but I think I've made my case. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify Engage01 of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page. Please do so and also provide diffs to the personal attacks on your talk page that have occurred since the initial block. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Notification was made at 03:34. Most diffs are in the body of the article, but I will include them all as requested here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kire1975: Just a heads-up that it looks like you've pinged the Article Talk page for "Engage01" rather than the User Talk page where it probably should be. Leafy46 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is better. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

None of those diffs contain personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This one says "you have not stopped talking to me for weeks now." It is an "accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence." As stated above, and demonstrable on their talk page, I interacted with them once three weeks ago and never again until today.

This one claims that I provided no context as a reply to link that is context to what the complaint is about.

The others accuse me of attempting to contact them when the edits in question are justified. Other reasons are described above.

I respect your opinion. Kire1975 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm very confused. Most of what you linked to doesn't even come close to personal attacks. Instead it mostly consists of Engage01 telling you they want to stop talking to you, which is fair enough. But I don't understand why they needed to say it so many times both because you should have stopped when asked (especially the pings) but also because it was unproductive for them to just keep leaving new messages given the risk of replies inviting more replies. Ultimately the core of this is made all the more confusing due to the fact it seems to be a content dispute which editors can't really refuse to discuss if they want to enact a change (although they can still say no pings) but since it was happening on a User talk page it was sort of fair to say nah. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the pings. Thank you. To be fair, after observing Engage01's behavior three weeks ago, I don't think it would make a difference, but I pledge to not ping them from now on.

May I ask what you mean by since it was happening on a User talk page it was sort of fair to say nah? My page or theirs? Engage01 kept coming onto my talk page to tell me not to contact him. I left one warning at his page that triggered all this. The reversions were pinging him, and then I pinged him on my talking page, but as you said it seems to be a content dispute which editors can't really refuse to discuss if they want to enact a change.

I feel like Engage01 was setting me up to be bludgeoned with all these unjustified edits that require discussion coupled with multiple comments on my page not to "contact him" when the content dispute is unfinished. If he had such a problem with it, he could have sought assistance from someone elese, which he tried to do with Leafy46 but then they rejected any form of compromise that was proposed and added childish taunts like Glad there is much interest in something kind of trivial. Let's all move along now.

Several times I asked for sources or any other justification besides WP:OR about the location of this concert but all I got was more and more variations of "don't contact me" which is really just a WP:THREAT of legal action at the end of the day, or at the very least admin action. Kire1975 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"Don't contact me" is neither a threat nor a personal attack. I would tell someone to stop contacting me if they left multiple warnings for making personal attacks when I hadn't made any. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The first two warnings for personal attacks were actually about activity that occurred on Talk:Palisades Fire three weeks ago. The level 3 warning was for personally attacking Leafy46 at User talk:Engage01. It must have been this edit andthe one before it. Only the level 4 personal attack warning had to do with this comment on my talk page. Engage01 left five more comments on my talk page after that. Kire1975 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I had assumed that voorts could see that the personal attacks that they were asking for were already in the body of the initial post, so I just added every comment Engage01 made on my UserTalk page. Several of them are irrelevant. I was rushign because being on ANI makes me nervous. Is there a way to remove them without appearing like I'm trying to change my edits inappropriately? Strikethrough perhaps? Kire1975 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a "new" editor by any means, but this is also my first experience posting anything at ANI; as such, I'll leave the deliberating to the grown-ups. However, for what it's worth: my "Clean the slate" comment was in reference to this comment that the user left on my talk page. I personally found it disparaging and think it's on the verge of being a personal attack, however I also tried to recognize my own role in letting the situation get to the brink of turning nasty. I think that this is a situation of weighing between whether the priority should be not biting a newcomer, or whether their behavior goes against WP:COMPETENCE — namely, "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus". To me, the frequent removal of criticism and conversations on their talk page, combined with their apparent refusal to write clear edit summaries and somewhat-combative style of responding to comments, seems almost like the antithesis of this quality. However, none of these are really red flags on their own, and I am too deeply intertwined with this situation to really give a fair, neutral viewpoint, so again: I'll leave it to the experienced. Leafy46 (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Engage01 (who I am not pinging per admin advice) has, instead of discussing the matter here, just left another comment on my talk page arguing with me about the location of the radio station in relation to the palace in Vienna using no sources and nothing but WP:OR. I was pinged. If they ever really wanted to be not contacted, I would request that the admins not take them seriously anymore. Kire1975 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Engage01 has also blanked the ANI warning from their talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with an editor removing templates and warning from their User talk page. It's verification that they have seen it. I'm not sure why editors keep bringing this behavior up as if it is misconduct when it's not.

They also have repeatedly asked you to not communicate with them. I'll admit that they haven't helped by responding to you on your User talk page. But I don't see a personal attack in their simple remark, "Let's all move along" and you can't bring up as evidence edits that they've already been given a block for a month ago. I'm not sure this disagreement is worthy of ANI and just recommend that you don't follow them and their editing contributions. If they do something egregious, let another editor bring the case to a noticeboard. In general, when an editor asks you not to post on their User talk page, you should respect that request except for mandatory notifications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It's more than just a a "simple remark" but I agree it doesn't rise to the level of admin involvement. I didn't know you can't bring up as evidence edits that they've already been given a block for a month ago.. That makes a lot of sense. The part about how removing things from their user talk page is "verification that they have seen it" is also something I've learned tonight. Thank you for your time. I withdraw my complaint. Kire1975 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, now Engage01 has found a page that I regularly contribute to and has reversed edits I've made and posted undue nuisance edits that I can't revert because I have been instructed by the admins here not to do anything that would ping them. What do you advise? Kire1975 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That edit occurred two minutes before they made this personal attack on my user talk page claiming I didn't post context and to "Please concentrate on editing where you will and I'm wanting less involvement with you at the time." Kire1975 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

These edits appear to be very similar to reversions I made on January 23 (here and here). I am only just now discovering that those reversions were of edits made by Engage01 (here and here), who made them six days after their partial block ended and thirteen days afer I and a few others got them blocked. Prior to this, Engage01 had no history editing this page. For them to now come out of the gate screaming that I'm contacting them too much is just WP:GASLIGHTING. Kire1975 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That is absolutely not a personal attack. And your repeatedly calling things that are not personal attacks, personal attacks, can itself be seen as a personal attack by you. I'd strongly suggest not doing so.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that is referring to this edit, saying that I didn't provide context under evidence of context being provided is what I was referring as an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence, see WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Then, loudly accusing me of intentionally trying to contact him after following my history and making disruptive edits with misleading edit summaries that require contact is also what I was referring to. You can claim it isn't, and I respect it, but that's your opinion, and mine is that it is, and it's not the only one. See above. Kire1975 (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't expect, nor do I need anyone to take any action on this. I have been makign these additions to keep track of what has been going on, because I have been gaslit. From now on, I will not put anymore evidence here else here. Please close the case and archive as soon as possible so I can get the link from there for my records. I learned a lot. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Given I'd say you're at risk of being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG from your conduct in this section, and you seem to be in a hurry to have it swept under the rug to avoid one, I don't believe this should be closed just yet. And it'll be archived in a week from the last post being made in it, not as soon as possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's my take having briefly looked into this earlier. I do feel agree with Leafy46 that Engage01 is too combative which isn't helpful especially as a new editor. That said, most of their recent stuff isn't close to crossing any lines. As someone who I think has only ever (if that) removed some vandalism or other nonsense from block evaders, from my talk page I'm not a fan of it, but since it's allowed it's ultimately up to them. I agree it can make talking to the editor to try and make them understand where they've gone wrong or how they should change difficult but I'd note that most of the removals are simply templated warning so stuff that rarely often doesn't need discussion. I'd note that Engage01 did leave that cleaning the state discussion for now. Engage01's use of edit summaries is also fairly poor. While mine is not always that good, I feel a number of these are in some ways worse than no edit summary. Finally, in light of comments like [93] [94], I wonder if it would be helpful for an actual admin, to have a brief word with Engage01 and explain to them the role of admins here and in particular they should not be ignoring the advice of another editor just because they're not an admin. While this doesn't need to come from an admin, since we're already here it IMO might be better in this case. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to implore an admin to please take up this suggestion. I have recently tried to address Engage01 on their use of first/full names in the article for Philip Seymour Hoffman, by first showing them the MOS page for it (MOS:SURNAME). Upon them removing my comment twice and making a post on the talk page for the article, I decided to show the user other featured articles, including that of Ben Affleck, which only refer to their subjects by their surnames; however, Engage01 has seemingly taken this as an invitation to instead change the page for Ben Affleck (using the rather misleading edit summary "trust fund", if I may add), instead of attempting to engage in any form of communication with me over the MOS or policy. I'm really starting to lose my patience here, and would appreciate it if an admin could help step in and address this. UPDATE: It appears that voorts has taken care of this, thanks for the help/quick uptake! Leafy46 (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Engage01 does the same thing on Sean Baker (filmmaker). Three times so far: here, here and here. No edit summaries justifying the change, and now apparently after being advised to read WP:SURNAME.

After voorts warned him on his talk page yesterday, he did not acknowledge any part of the arning, only complained about my edits on Sean Baker (filmmaker).

He made five more nuisance edits on that page. I believe he is attempting to provoke a slow moving edit war with me. All with misleading edit summaries.

He has added "Northeast (or sometimes Northwest) of another city that is unrelated to a the subject of the article" to any city on the page. SEe here, here, here and here. There is nothing in any source about these cities and their nearness to another city that makes it relevant to the biography of an Oscar nominated director who has never filmed in that whole state.

He has repeatedly - here and here - changed New York City to Manhattan even though he was advised by my previous edit summary that Manhattan is not in the source. Sure, New York University is in Manhattan but what purpose does this serve?: no edit summary

He adds the county of Baker's high school and gets it wrong twice. Today he has added that it is in two counties, which is more accurate according to the lead of the school's wiki page, but what purpose does it serve?: no edit summary.

Why would he attempt to build a consensus on Talk:Philip Seymour Hoffman when he already has the attention of admins here?

There are other patterns as well. What is the reason for any of this? This is the modus operandi of someone who is WP:NOT here to build an encyclopedia. Please provide another reason if you think I'm wrong.

Who else will he antagonize if nothing is done? Kire1975 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Engage has gotten into a shouting match about nonsense with @Milladrive about the Philip Seymour Hoffman page and others at User_talk:Milladrive#PSH. He was asked not to "troll the page", yet it continues as of about two hours ago.

Kire1975 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• User: Liz warned Engage01 to stop talking to me on my talk page here. 30 minutes ago, Engage01 has posted a threat to my talk page. He says "You get one warning" to me but he already "warned" me once in an edit summary here. I deny following him and invite him to explain what he means here. I won't tag him as advised by the admins above, but I am confident he will see this on my user contribution because he follows me anytime I make edits on my usual pages - see above - and makes nuisance edits around it. Kire1975 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  In the past 30 minutes, he has blanked my edits for no legitimate reason [95][96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] and [103]. Kire1975 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Last night, Engage01 went to great lengths to bait me into an edit war at RimWorld. The story is in the edit sumarries: [104] [105] [106] [107] and [108]. After this edit, Engage01 went to User talk:Liz to say "One of them is following me around on Wikipedia.". Before I could write something and put it in the talk page as requested, Engage01 made a relatively reasonable edit [109] that would have made any post I made seeking consensus on the talk page irrelevant.

  Engage01's edits were then reverted by another editor (WP:consenus) [110] without complaint by Engage01. User:Soetermans restored my tag [111] and then said Better yet, it's not necessary to mention at all - article is about a game and company being from Ottowa is not important for lead. [112]. Kire1975 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  It seems like you went around to a bunch of pages Engage01 had edited and added relevance tags. Once the tag was removed from RimWorld, you should not have edit-warred to restore it. I recommend that you avoid Engage01. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag.

  Per WP:EW: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

  I followed the directions. I sought consensus. No edits were reverted by me. Engage01 has reverted my edited dozens of times, and you're giving me a warning. "looks like" is not evidence. Engage01 reverted many tags and made it harder for other editors to seek consensus. No warnings. I request voorts recuse himself from this matter and leave it for other admins to decide. Kire1975 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  You added a tag, Engage01 removed it, and you restored it. I said that it seemed like you followed Engage01 to random pages because he edited several pages and then you showed up to add relevance maintenance tags, per the diffs you provided. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I went where I knew there would be problem edits and added relevance tags to seek consensus. I added relevance tags because of content, not personalities. That edit summary was a personal attack. Kire1975 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  How in the world is this edit summary a personal attack? The relevance is unquestioned; reworking the sentences is fine though voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  The relevance is unquestioned while simultaneously reverting a tag questioning the relevance of the information is an Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. and an adhominem attack. It is also reality denial, misdirection and baseless contradiction. See WP:GASLIGHTING. Kire1975 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's disruptive and incorrect, but it's not a personal attack. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  It is not a personal attack. Claiming things are personal attacks that are, in fact, not personal attacks, is itself a personal attack. You have been warned about this before. Stop it, or face consequences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Other admin here. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Counterpoint: WP:DONTPOSTPONE. They are threatening to punish me for seeking help. If I walk away now, there will be appeal for a long long time. Kire1975 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  We're not threatening to punish [you] for seeking help. Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. An interaction ban is intended to prevent further escalation of your disputes. Instead of backing away from Engage01, who you've accused of making personal attacks and disruptive editing, you've admittedly gone through their edit history and started tagging articles where they made edits. All of that said, Engage01's edits are and have been problematic, but that doesn't excuse your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Two-way I-Ban

Depite not wanting to engage with one another, Kire1975 and Engage01 seem unable to resist poking one another repeatedly. Suggest an I-ban so that were not here for a 3rd ANI soon. Star Mississippi 02:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Otherwise I think we're going to be in block territory. Star Mississippi 02:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Support I was close to suggesting one myself. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• :Oppose - "engaging each other" is too loosely defined. :Kire1975 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

An WP:IBAN is very clearly defined. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:IBAN says nothing about relevance tags on content and seeking consensus on talk pages as suggested by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Kire1975 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Support - one way IBAN against Engage01 according to the evidence posted above, not what it "looks like". Kire1975 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You admitted to going through Engage01's edits to tag them above: I went where I knew there would be problem edits and added relevance tags to seek consensus. On one of those articles, you edit warred to restore the maintenance tag and then came here to try to get Engage01 in trouble. Their problematic edits don't excuse your problematic conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It means you two do not interact with one another at all. No talk pages, no articles, no tags. Star Mississippi 02:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to seek consensus about that. Kire1975 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is for. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kire1975 you are being disruptive. That's what a IBAN means, you do not get to seek consensus about a project policy. Star Mississippi 02:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I came to this page for help and I've gotten gaslit and accused and no help has been done.

I have asked for consensus about the language of WP:IBAN and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. You are free to interpret either one however you choose, but not if the letter of the other one remains unchanged. Kire1975 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

you do not get to seek consensus about a project policy. WHat?

I request now that both voorts and Star Mississippi recuse themselves from this conversation. Kire1975 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Happily acknowledged and accepted. I was trying to keep you from getting blocked but you seem content to barrel headlong into that despite multiple boomerang warnings. Star Mississippi 03:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Still respecting your wish of recusal @Kire1975, but I think you're misunderstanding my point. An I-Ban is part of the policy. This proposal exists to determine whether there should be an I-ban in place i.e. consensus. Wikilawyering and opening two additional threads because you don't agree with the banning policy while there is a discussion open about your conduct* is not going to help your cause. Right now this comment is about your conduct because of your discussions about an I-Ban. I am not otherwise excusing Engage's conduct, which is why this is a mutual and not one way i-ban. Star Mississippi 03:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw your ping Star when I was on the bus. I assumed I was getting banned and I missed the stop. I am out here in the rain now. Next bus comes in 24 minutes. This is the second time you have claimed you respect my recusal request and the third time you have interacted since the request was made. Your coomments disagree with the banning policy. I have been contributing for 15 years. I know what wikilawyering is. I also know what gaslighting is. Level 3 recusal request on Star please. Kire1975 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For the record, these two rfc were added before I saw star made her unsourced claim about how I don't get to seek consensus about project policy.

• Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Seeking_consensus_about_WP:AVOIDEDITWAR
• Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Seeking_consensus_about_WP:AVOIDEDITWAR Kire1975 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:TALKFIRST. Anyone can seek consensus about project policy. Kire1975 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Now you're forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP is Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages.

voorts and star are proposing that I be IBANNED for doing something recommended by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and not even mentioned at WP:IBAN. I am defending myself.

It is not the same issue as Engage01 making personal attacks, following me around, making baseless personal attacks, reverting more than a dozen of my edits in one day with misleading edit summaries.

voorts has been asked to recuse himself twice now but continues to engage. I came here for help, in good faith. voorts has never assumed that about me from the beginning. See WP:AGF. Your support vote is there. I can't ask you to take it away, but I want to speak to someone else now please. Kire1975 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a substantial evidence of Kire1975's wrongdoing? In particular, User:Engage01 says nothing in their favor. Maybe less drastic dispute resolution means are to be tried first, starting with WP:BRD? --Altenmann >talk 04:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's interesting that Engage01 says nothing in their favor. All they have said about it is that I am "following" him, as if that was their plan after all. You may say you disagree, but it fits. Ask yourself: what harm was done? Y'all keep trying to push aside the letter of the law, but that's what the intent is about. To avoid harm. Y'all decided that I was a naughty boy from the beginning, and I have been overwhelmed. Mark my words: There's harm in that. Kire1975 (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Modify to one way I-Ban - Per WP:IBAN I have not substantially committed any of the following acts after being warned:
• edit Engage01's user and talk pages;
• reply to Engage01 in discussions;
• mention Engage01 by linking to their user page except when notifiying him about this ANI discussion, as is required and warned about by zoort;
• make reference to or comment on Engage01 anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly, except here at ANI and this is justified;
• undo Engage01's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means; (once or twice, not substantial enough to support a ban and never to do anything but build an encyclopedia)
• use the thanks extension to respond to Engage01's edits.

The use of relevance pages and seeking consensus about problem edits (content not personality) on talk pages was guided by policy at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. voort and star are not experiencing what I am experiencing. They are not assuming good faith. They have not provided evidence that I have committed any substantial violation worthy of WP:IBAN. I came here so that I can get a user who has been stalking me for a month and have gotten very little good faith discussion from voorts and star, and very little anything else from the other admins and involved editors who have been pinged. That I'm upset should be a given. You can say WP:DROPTHESTICK all you want, but that just means you want this out of your way. It will be interfering with my ability to edit for a long long time. NOw you've got a former administrator asking for evidence of wrongdoing. I take back my recusal request if and only if Star and Voorts can provide substantial evidence of wrongdoing worthy of IBAN. My comments are substantial. This has been dizzying for me. I have been painstaking about the policies because it's important to me. I am not wikilaywering. The least voorts and star can do is provide evidence of wrongdoing. All I've gotten is false allegations, and then more allegations about my "behavior" when any reasonable person would be upset when they are being attacked like that. Kire1975 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kire1975, if you seek sanctions or recusal from every editor or admin who has criticisms of your behavior, I can almost guarantee you that there will be consequences for you. You can't just seek to eliminate from a discussion everyone you disagree with. I think an IBan would give you what you want which is an end to contact with Engage01. It's unfortunate that you seem to view it as some sort of punishment on you.

And for all of the hundreds of discussions I've seen on AN and ANI over the past 11 years, I don't think I've ever seen one in which an editor asked for not one, but two, admins to recuse themselves from the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Why would I want an iban? I have obeyed your instructions not to contact Engage01. Adding tags and seeking discussion about content is not ibannable for the reasons stated above. This all started because Engage01 sought a page he knew I regularly edited after his block expired and I reverted it having no idea it was him until we we were well into this discussion. Do I have to walk on eggshells and check the username of every person that contributed to the presence of something that looks like it needs to be edited from now on? voorts says WP:IBAN is very clear, but WP:IBAN says nothing about tags or seeking consensus about content on talk pages. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR is very clear and that is what I have done.

Being an admin doesn't mean editors can't question their decisions. voorts and star have provided no evidence of substantial wrongdoing.

Saying " if you do x, then there will be consequences" is a threat. Saying "you have done x" and not discussing what it is or how it can be prevented is impertinence. How do you not expect someone to behave emotionally over that kind of thing? I came here for help and now I will have an IBAN on my block log forever. Why was there no action? Do you not see the sophisticated way he intended to entrap me right before he left that comment accusing me of "following" him. How did he know I was "following" him if he wasn't doing the exact same thing and worse? I didn't ping him. He reverted a dozen edits of mine in the past 24 hours.

WP:WORKITOUT says Whether the addition/removal to the article can be justified or not, it is sometimes better to handle the dispute at the time it occurs. If you Iban me, you will be doing so because I was attempting to seek consensus about problem edits, period. I have no interest in Engage01 other than trying to work out a way to get him to stop bothering me. Kire1975 (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Kire1975, you say you want substantial evidence of wrongdoing worthy of IBAN. My response, in addition to I went where I knew there would be problem edits and added relevance tags to seek consensus which is you WP:WIKIHOUNDING Engage01, the entirety of your conduct in this ANI is the evidence. You were told to drop the stick and instead have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down, claiming the sophisticated way he intended to entrap me which, in the lack of evidence provided, is itself the exact sort of personal attack you repeatedly (and groundlessly) claim they have been making on you. Speaking quite frankly you're fortunate to be getting a IBAN instead of a block - accept your WP:BOOMERANG as solving the problem and move on with editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are accusing me of "groundlessly" claiming that they have been personally attacking me by making allegations without evidence? The grounds are up there take another look. You are free to disagree, but that doesn't make it so. See also WP:LEGS.

  If you would like me to provide evidence of the entrapment, I can but it's "sophisticated". Are you willing to hear me out? Kire1975 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  There were a lot of problem edits I did let go, by the way. A justified change is a justified change and it would have been justified to all if Engage01 had not totally disrupted the Talk:Palisades Fire in the middle of a national emergency then retaliated against me for getting him blocked. Has anyone else asked User: ScottishFinnishRadish to share his perspective on the reason why he blocked this user?

  If a problem edit exists and there is no way to tell anyone about it because of a punitive IBAN, then who is here to build an encyclopedia and who isn't? Kire1975 (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  If a problem edit exists other editors can deal with it. The encyclopedia does not hinge on your reporting it. I can "take another look" but I'll see what I saw before and will see again: multiple claims by you of personal attacks that are not personal attacks, with literally everybody telling you they are not personal attacks. When everybody holds a different opinion than you, a wise person considers that they might be the one who is wrong, not everybody else. While Engage01 is certainly not without sin here, you have utterly eliminated any ability to assume good faith about your actions through your own actions with bludgeoning the discussion, refusing to listen when told to drop the stick (along with refusal to drop the stick), and repeated insistance that things are personal attacks when they are not. I say again - accept the IBAN, because continuing as you have been in this discussion, and the previous one, will get you blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  User:Aquillion said something here that I hadn't thought of before: ANI participants are taking it as a sign that you're not going to stop unless forced to stop. I've stopped. I have no reason to interact with Engage01 again.

  I wish someone had pointed out that WP:PERSONALATTACKS says Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.. F that guy, but<-- see below, I misread --> I still have no reason to contact him. And I won't, but y'all won't know it if you IBAN me.

  Please address @Altenmann's concern. At the top of this discussion, voorts asked me to post personal attacks on my personal page, so I posted the whole conversation and the die was cast "no personal attacks" and I'm a disrupter when all you could have done was discuss it with me, explain that insults are not personal attacks and let me clarify that the diffs in question weren't on my personal page. Kire1975 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wait, I misread it again. Apparently I thought it said "insulting or disparaging an editor in NOT a personal attack. I will be strikethroughing that text immediately. I read stuff wrong sometimes. I keep trying to figure out how you all can say that the insults and demeaning deprecations described above are not personal attacks but all I've gotten is claims and outrage that I don't get it. I'm trying to get it. You won't believe me now, Bushranger has said as much when linking to WP:PACT. I was in a hostile situation. I came here for a resolution. I got hostility in return. I once had a doctor's note to give to a real life judge that said "please allow extra time" for me to get my thoughts together. Would it help if I got one of those? It could take some time to get an appointment. There is often a three month wait. Kire1975 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't share your personal medical information in a public place on the internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  But then no one can see that you've sensorially overwhelmed a neurodivergent person and played gotcha all day instead asking are you sure and otherwise creating a discussion around these questions instead of accusing me of malice because I can't answer your questions in the manner you want me to. Kire1975 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thak you for your concern, but if that were policy, then this list of userboxes for wikipedians with neurodivergence to add to their User pages wouldn't exist. Kire1975 (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Do you want to be blocked? Because that last bit is basically begging to be blocked. I'm becoming increasingly convinced we're all being trolled here.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I do not want to be blocked. I want to go back to adding bare citation details to wikipedia articles because it self-soothes me. I am neurodivergent. I cannot convince you of anything if you've made up your mind. Kire1975 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) While editing Wikipedia can be therapeutic, Wikipedia is not therapy. You are still responsible for how you conduct yourself on this platform and how you interact with others. If that proves to be difficult, I'd suggest finding some other outlet that causes you less stress. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've only made up [my] mind because of what you have convinced me of. The fact this discussion has all but completely boomeranged around on you is due soley to your actions in it. That being said, if you just want to go back to citing, accepting the two-way iban is how that is going to happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I p-blocked them for bludgeoning, incivility, and personal attacks. I haven't looked into the current rhubarb in any detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm confused by your message. I thought it meant you had blocked Kire1975 but they aren't blocked. Who did you block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was confused too at first @Liz. I think @ScottishFinnishRadish meant that he'd blocked Engage01-answering Kire's question for his perspective Star Mississippi 04:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, Star Mississippi, but Engage01 was blocked for one week back on January 10th and is currently unblocked. I'm not sure what SFR meant when they posted this message today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was responding to Kire1975's question, where they pinged me, Has anyone else asked User: ScottishFinnishRadish to share his perspective on the reason why he blocked this user? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBan In case this was not clear enough. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Change to Support: I'm reading things that aren't there. I can't stop replying in agner. I'm having hallucinations now from the meltdowns this has been giving me. I need a break. I don't feel I've been treated fairly, but it's beyond that now. I don't want any bans or blocks but I feel they may be necessary. All I ask is that if you ban me from Wikipedia that you make it temporary, like for 10 days or a month. I believe in Wikipedia and I believe that my work here has been valuable 99 percent of the time and I would like to continue doing sometime later when all this has cooled off. I have no reason to contact Engage01 but you do what you feel you must do. I've learned a lot this week. I sincerely hope that it's enough. Kire1975 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Kire1975, I'm sorry if you feel you've been treated unfairly. But, take a step back. This complaint has been open many days now and you have explained yourself many times. Multiple admins and editors have read over this case and offered you their candid advice and some of it has been repeated multiple times so, from our standpoint, it seems like you are sticking to your point of view and not considering the advice that has been given to you. We'd love for you to continue to edit and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines but it's clear that you see this situation differently than other people. I'm afraid that you are not going to get the resolution you are seeking so can you live with that? I hope so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke TPA for User:49.142.22.5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I'm not sure where to report this, but this IP has been misusing his talk page for hours now. quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 13:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 this, I was just about to file this, but you beat me to it. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP has been globally blocked for 24 hours for cross-wiki abuse. I believe a global block removes talk page access; if so, no further action is needed for the moment. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False positive in blacklisting for sites containing "heritage.org"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#heritage.org. Unrelated sites like english-heritage .org and heritage .org.nz are being blacklisted as well. Since URLs can't be rendered without a protocol prefix (e.g. https://), I propose that we change the Heritage regex currently near the end of the blacklist to something like \/\b([^\.]*?\.)?heritage\.org\b(?!\.) Hopefully I"m in the right place. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Aaron, it looks like there is a discussion going on at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#heritage.org. I'm not sure why you brought this to ANI which is about claims about editor misconduct and urgent problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I felt this was an "urgent" thing requiring administrative action. And I don't think any active admins know about that discussion. From experience I feel like this is out of Pperry's editing schedule. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I violating WP:AGF?

I'm currently in a heated discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, because I have said that the intention of designating this organization as WP:FRINGE is so that sources that indirectly rely on SEGM can also be declared as WP:FRINGE and banned from use. I've been accused of being WP:TENDENTIOUS [113] and not having good faith [114] by two other editors, so I'm bringing this here in the hopes uninvolved admins can tell me if I need to stop. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Everyone in that discussion needs to chill out. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I was involved to a minor degree in those noticeboard discussions, I would say that your argument is assuming that others will leverage the outcome to browbeat/appeal-to-force when sources tangentially related to SEGM are being discussed. [115] this edit in particular is overstepping quite a bit in how you are characterizing Loki's perspective. The conversation you had with YFNS afterward again shows this mindset [116] despite their attempts to clarify. The behavior you are assuming others will engage in is something which would get them sanctioned if they were to actually do it (namely: reject otherwise reliable sources for their conclusions without a solid basis - with the caveat that sometimes, reliable sources publish something unreliable e.g. Lancet and Andrew Wakefield). WP:AGF is, as I understand it anyway, only moved beyond once bad conduct has occurred - and even then it still must be substantiated with diffs. If you entrench in the mindset that 'the other side will leverage this to do x', then that is assuming they are going to/are already engaging in bad faith. If they act in bad faith, use the dispute resolution system to bring them to account on the specific matters at hand rather than pre-judging what they will do in the future (also see WP:ASPERSIONS). Hope this helps. Relm (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's valid to ask what the RfC outcome will actually do. Plenty of editors claim RfCs are narrow and then they go on to argue for broad interpretations after the RfCs are closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but Chess wasn’t asking. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussing the material outcome of an RfC is helpful. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not really what happened here though. As long as Chess takes the feedback and doesn't resume badgering Loki I think no action is needed here though. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, while I do think Chess was being weirdly aggressive and misrepresenting what I was saying, it's by no means the worst someone has ever misrepresented me.

(In the future, I would appreciate being pinged to a discussion about me tho.) Loki (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notify anyone because I was getting advice on myself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User: Pax98 a user is continuously using cursed words, making fun of me and provoking statements in discussion page. And he also using native language hindi to abused me while discussion on a topic.

Some of his replies/edits are undid by other editors by still there's many you guys can see that. In the page of discussion Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 about (time to update tank losses) he continuously doing that all things and even some in my personal user discussion page.

And also false accusations too.

PWC786 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict)You need to provide diffs... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox stuff aside, I'm pretty sure mocking other editors like this is completely unacceptable, regardless of if there was a issue with a editor's edits, or grammar. User is clearly here to create a toxic and unhealthy editing environment. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've notified the mentioned user of this report for you. (Please do it yourself next time) Note that the user has removed the notice within a few minutes. Edit:User restored the notice ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok I corrected the mistake now you can see that person. PWC786 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked PWC786 as a sock. I'm leaving this open in case any admin wants to take action against Pax98 for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have given Pax98 a girm warning for their personal attacks and a contentious topics alert about India/Pakistan. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing on So Sethaputra

• BudeSethaputra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:1151:810:58c:7070:162:a156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After User:BudeSethaputra added an unsourced paragraph (diff) to So Sethaputra, I reverted the edit and left her a warning about WP:COI (judging from the username). An IP then re-added the same unsourced content (diff), plus some more information that makes clear Bude Sethaputra and So Sethaputra are related (diff).

I believe the IP is simply User:BudeSethaputra editing while logged out to evade COI issues - could one or both accounts be blocked? --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Iiii I I I, if you suspect sockpuppetry, it's appropriate for you to file a case at SPI, not ANI, but we are talking about 3 edits here, 1 edit by BudeSethaputra and 2 edits by the IP editor. And ANI is where editors come for "chronic, intractable problems", when other forms of dispute resolution have failed. What other methods have you tried? BudeSethaputra hasn't edited since your warning.

We might have a checkuser come by and check on these two but I'm not seeing enough disruption right now to warrant a sanction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a notice at BudeSethaputra's User talk page asking them not to edit logged out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little overzealous. It's true that BudeSethaputra hasn't edited since my warning, but that's because (I believe) BudeSethaputra switched to editing with the IP so the COI would be less obvious. Iiii I I I (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

IP self-reverting just to sound off in the edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Every so often an anonymous user pops into Talk:Gender-critical feminism to make a trivial or nonsensical edit and then revert themselves. Clearly the actual intention is to sound off in the edit summaries. Each time they use the summary "Is it regarded as bigoted, hateful, anti trans, and inflammatory to believe or state Biological sex has even to any sense of existence.", or a minor variant with different grammatical errors. I assume that this is intended to be a sarcastic and disruptive rhetorical question.

Examples:

• Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:5F01:59E4:90C2:CE1B:965C (most recent)
• Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:4601:E973:74B0:2765:7A30 (most prolific, warned here)
• Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:D852:B527:6D07:6EA7
• Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:C9AA:C739:DCC3:87A2

It's not high volume and it hasn't actually succeeded in causing much disruption, just putting garbage in the edit summaries. Is there anything we can, or should, do about this or is it just too pathetic to be worth our time? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@DanielRigal I've blocked the most recent IP on a WP:ZT basis. Beyond that I took a look at the /49 range which these fall into and a range block IMO can't be justified given the level of disruption vs the very considerable collateral damage that would result from the block. I'm not a fan of playing whack-a-mole but in this case, I don't think we have a choice. On a side note, in this instance I don't think it's a big deal as the edit was nakedly bad faith, but when filing reports here all involved parties need to be notified of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by anon IP 190.219.102.104

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.219.102.104 I recently put in a request to semi-protect Calito Soul at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Calito Soul because of an anon-IP making problematic edits there and at AFD across multiple nominations. See the history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alon9393/Archive#12 January 2025 and User talk:190.219.102.114 as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calito Soul (5th nomination) and the other associated AFDs. The anon IP (which appears to be using a rotating IP address to evade their block) is bringing content disputes to the page protection request page. This is getting out of hand.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You should probably take this to SPI. Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

SPI is a good idea although Checkusers won't normally connect registered accounts with IP accounts. But I've gone ahead and blocked 190.219.102.104 a week for block evasion on behavioral evidence and the fact that they all geolocate to Panama. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anti History of Iran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Anti History of Iran". Even if it wasn't a name made by a sock to WP:HARASS me, it certainly isn't a positive one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, could you notify the editor of this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Ops, you're right. My bad, I've notified them. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've issued a soft block for username violation, asking them to change their name. It was clearly inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP adding unsourced categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2601:249:8800:3E10:F4F7:2A6B:29D4:AF60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Repeat addition of unsourced categories ([117] [118] [119]). Unsure if this is vandalism or disruptive editing, so I'm posting it here. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they/it) ^talk/edits 01:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by User:49.204.27.79 and User:14.139.94.110

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Disruptive editing on sourced contents Fab Feb (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Fab Feb, you need to notify both editors that you opened a discussion here and also supply some evidence, in the form of diffs/edits of what you see as "disruptive editing". You need to do more here for there to be any action taken and you should start with notifying the two editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You can check the links provided for the population. But it's continuously edited by the users without providing any citations. Fab Feb (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fab Feb as Liz said, you need to provide diff links here. Electricmemory (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranipet&oldid=1274458515

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walajapet&oldid=1274458602

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walajapet&oldid=1274143866

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranipet&oldid=1274143736 Fab Feb (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• This concerns the articles Walajapet and Ranipet and IPs 49.204.27.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 14.139.94.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I’ll throw in 49.204.28.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 49.204.28.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as they are clearly the same person. What they are doing is changing population figures possibly in good faith but without providing sources and have been doing this for some weeks. They are editing using a mobile, blocking would not be effective as their connection changes. If a few people could add these pages to their watchlist, that would be helpful. Protection is a possibility if it persists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Both pages semi protected x 2 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism from a cult member

• Kelvintjy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello

On this page, related to a school system settled by a japanese buddhist organization, user Kelvintjy keeps :

- removing any modification that does not promote the Soka Gakkai organization

- remaning silent : he NEVER answers any question on the talk page

It looks like he belongs to this organization and is paid to do that, but it's impossible to have any details about this.

Recently, he was banned from the Soka Gakkai page for vandalism... And he also removes embarassing information from his own talk page.

Can semone please tell him to behave better and stop consider the above mentionned page (and many others like Nichiren Buddhism, Soka Gakkai International, Josei Toda) ?

Many thanks,

--Raoul mishima (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You said that this editor was inserting unsourced material into the page but this most recent edit seems to be replete with citations. Also calling another editor a "cult member" is a failure of WP:AGF. I would suggest that @Kelvintjy: needs to learn that communication is required and respond at article talk rather than edit warring but I would suggest that @Raoul mishima: seems to be forum shopping to get disciplinary action against an editor who, while not behaving perfectly, mostly needs to learn to engage better at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Also I see absolutely no indication of vandalism. The page block from Soka Gakkai was for edit-warring, NOT vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not very good in explaining all the technical terms in which the person who lodge the complain is very good at.

Please look at the talk page in the below link and you will understands why I do not want to go on a long article talk wars. May other editor had tried to give a proper reason but in the end just give up in reverting back the articles. There are too many article related with Soka Gakkai had been vandalized the above complainant already where he removed all the citated article and said that it either primary source, paid source or laudatory paragraph.

• Talk:Soka_Gakkai
• Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

Kelvintjy (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I see an edit war going on between these two editors at Soka School System and Soka Gakkai International. Kelvintjy has an article block but it's not a topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see much point mentioning editors removing content from their talk page given it's explicitly allowed WP:OWNTALK. Also part of what was removed was a welcome message and an arbcom election template, so it's a little weird to call it "embarrassing information". IMO, the only time it's worth bringing up an editor removing stuff from their talk page would be to explain why there has been limited discussion with the editor on how they need to change. And perhaps to explain why the editor should still be blocked even if they've only received low level warnings (but a number of them). However that should be the focus, not embarrassing information. And should consider whether discussion elsewhere might have been more appropriate. For example in any edit war the obvious question is whether anyone has tried to discuss on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Seeing this thread and knowing more than a little bit about Buddhism the very first thing I did was go to article talk to ask about some of the sources removed. So far neither party of this dispute has contributed at article talk to respond to those questions but they haven't done much anything else either so I can be patient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

IMO, the only time it's worth bringing up an editor removing stuff from their talk page I think the only thing that's outright prohibited from being removed from your own talk page is declined unblock requests. (Even block notices are fair game to be removed, which puzzles me slightly.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Did I really vandalized Soka Gakkai page? To all the other editor, do you all agree that I get article ban in Soka Gakkai due to vandalism where I keep reverting back the article? Is reverting back the article considered as vandalism?

Below are some of the articles that had been had change by the complainant. All the articles are related to Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda. You all also want to article ban me on all the below articles as well for vandalism?

• Nikkō Shōnin
• Hokkekō
• Nichiren-shū
• Nichiren Buddhism
• List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda
• LGBTQ-affirming religious groups
• Timeline of history of environmentalism
• Lèse-majesté in Japan
• Min-On Concert Association
• Jimon Ogasawara
• Jōsei Toda
• Humanistic Buddhism
• Nikken Abe
• Religion in France
• Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan
• Lotus Sutra
• Farouk Hosny
• Gohonzon
• Tsunesaburō Makiguchi
• Poet laureate
• Komeito
• 1222
• Taiseki-ji
• Zadankai
• Soka University of America
• Arnold J. Toynbee
• Sōka University Kelvintjy (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Broskalitre gaming EC permission

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Broskalitre (talk · contribs) is making unconstructive edits in User:Broskalitre/sandbox. They have admitted it's an attempt to WP:PGAME extended-confirmed permissions. They continue after being asked multiple times on their talk page to stop. Jfire (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Javisvis94

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Javisvis94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unwilling to discuss changes after edit warring [120]: I’d be happy to discuss abouth the matter but I won’t for I know that with all the evidence shown, you still will edit the page following a fake narrative.
Incivility [121]: So it is OK for the other editors to edit the page giving fake information but it not OK when I edit the page justifying why. Wow, what a genius.
WP:ASPERSIONS [122]: And I won’t for as I said, whoever edited the page will continue to change it in favour of a fake narrative, also by your interest I assume you support this fake narrative.
Willingness to make a sockpuppet to continue edit warring if blocked [123]: I don’t care, if I have to edit again I will and if I get blocked I will just create a new profile and that’s it.
And, of course, there's the edit warring itself (no 3RR break, though they clearly want to continue the edit warring behavior) [124], [125], [126]. I've repeatedly told them to stop on their talk page.

Jasvisvis94 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to create a healthy, collaborative environment. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, I know I'm a softie but this is a brand new editor with 9 total edits. I'd like to see if they come here to communicate with the community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't think so as I've given them a total of 4 chances with each message I sent for them to stop. A 5th chance won't be worth it, imo. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Applying a bit of WP:IAR, I ECP protected 2024 Kansas City Chiefs season for a week and left a message at the user's talk. There is nothing at Talk:2024 Kansas City Chiefs season and discussion would be the next step. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

For me that’s fine if that will stop other users to write fake information (which I had been deleting) for me that’s fine Javisvis94 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User has indicated that if blocked, they "will simply create another account and keep editing the page to remove fake information." Definitely a case of IDHT. Hellbus (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I won’t deny it. Wow, you are so obsessed with a fake narrative that you only report me. Javisvis94 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 49.204.27.79

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 49.204.27.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The page is being continuously disrupted by adding unsourced contents from anonymous user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranipet_district&oldid=1274680925 Fab Feb (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That user was never given a warning EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Fab Feb, this is your second report at ANI in the past two days. Consider reporting vandalism at WP:AIV after you have warned the editor and tried communicating with them. You shouldn't be filing reports here on a daily basis, that's not what ANI is for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:I am Bhadz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I am Bhadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user created a user page in the form of a blog, apparently intending to use their user page as a blog. This is contrary to Wikipedia:User pages. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I would remove the social media links and just leave it alone but another editor might tag it CSD U5. It seems harmless. They did ask you a question on their User talk page you should respond to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, I resolved the issue with the user by talking to them on their talk page. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's the best possible resolution, Z. Patterson. Fewer templates, more discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User RoxySaunders

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

}

I didn't want to bring this here but this case is so egregious that it boggles my mind. In an edit here, the User:RoxySaunders put in the statement "The change attracted criticism and death threats from conservatives" and cited this as the source for their claim link. Not only does this source not mention "conservatives" or anything related to it AT ALL, it also does not mention multiple cases of such an event supposedly happening, or "criticism", in any way. Instead, the source talks about A SINGLE CASE of a man from California (a known left-leaning state) and does not specify the man's political affiliations at all. This is a user that has been registered for over 4 years and should definitely know better by now to not misrepresent source material to push a certain viewpoint. I'm hoping an administrator can remind the user why such conduct his extremely disruptive, especially since most users seeing a statement like this with a source behind it won't question it any further and just accept it as a fact. 91.65.131.15 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been editing this project for about an hour. Did you consider an alternative to ANI, like discussing the situation on the editor's User talk page or the article talk page before coming here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

First, as noted on Roxy's user page (which you have linked in this complaint), her pronouns are she/her. Please avoid assuming everyone on this site is male, as this is a mistaken presumption. If you're unsure, using "they" is a considerate option.

Additionally, as mentioned in several places on this page, ANI is meant for addressing "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." A single edit doesn't seem to meet that threshold. If you're aiming to show a pattern of behavior, you'll need to provide more diffs for context.

If you disagree with the edit itself, you're absolutely within your rights to follow the revert process outlined in WP:BRD, and you can open a discussion on the article's talk page. However, please remember that ANI is not meant for discussing individual edits unless they're particularly egregious (and indicative of conduct issues like personal attacks, incivility etc.), but rather for addressing ongoing patterns of behavior or disruption. ANI is for conduct issues, content issues like your post above are better resolved through discussion with the other editor(s) and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION if needed - I understand that everything can seem confusing here if you're a newbie! :)

Lastly, admins are simply regular editors with additional tools for blocking, protecting, and deleting content. Seeking an admin "reminder" for a single edit isn't necessary and carries no more weight than addressing your concerns directly on the user's talk page.

Thank you! :)

MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think "why such conduct his extremely disruptive" is a typo for "why such conduct is extremely disruptive"... the ip did use 'they' at first.  Tewdar  09:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Stricken, apologies to the IP. I'm sorry for misreading (I mistakenly read it as "why his extremely disruptive content") :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you also for pointing it out, Tewdar! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, while I agree that bringing this to ANI is ridiculous, the edit relabelled Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull from a British anti-trans activist to a British far-right activist, a label which appears in neither the cited source nor Minshull's article. While Minshull seems to have a lot of sketchy associations, I don't think the sourcing is good enough for this to appear in wikivoice.  Tewdar  09:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tewdar: The Guardian described Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (using her alias Posie Parker) as an anti-trans activist[127], so at least that claim can be reliably sourced, but this is a content debate so this is not suitable for ANI. Polygnotus (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe you have misread my comment (must be Sunday morning). The sourcing for anti-trans activist is fine. The sourcing for far-right activist is not.  Tewdar  09:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Yeah, I am saying that anti-trans activist can be reliably sourced, so now I am asking for reliable sources for far-right activist. See Talk:Adult_human_female#Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull_/_Posie_Parker. Polygnotus (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and remove it then!! I really don't think this is what ANI is for, this is clearly a content dispute about sourcing, and unless there's a pattern of unsourced defamatory content from the reported user this would be much better suited to a talk page discussion. Just FYI to the opener, if you don't like content (like this), be the R in WP:BRD then open a talk page discussion and let the another editor know so you can come to a compromise, ANI is a bit overkill here considering you don't seem to have even tried to collaborate with the editor before coming straight here. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Adult_human_female#Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull_/_Posie_Parker. Polygnotus (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for taking the lead and opening a talk section (I was just about to do that!). IP and Roxy, do you both agree to use the talk? :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually I found this [128] so I does seem you tried to discuss (but obviously the accusations you made there are not the way to go about this), but then didn't even wait for a reply after posting that and opened an ANI 30 minutes later. Opener, please don't accuse others for "vandalism" for (allegedly) misrepresenting sources, WP:VANDALISM has a very specific definition and accusations can be seen as a form of WP:ASPERSION. I think we can close this and move on if both editors involved here (Roxy and the IP) can agree to use the talk page to discuss, and the IP acknowledges that they now understand what ANI is for! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Liz outing a blocked user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure if this is the best place to report an incident involving member of ARBCOM, but have a look at [129] in the context of the full thread[130]. 216.126.35.221 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• The banned editor involved had previously used IPs geolocating to Panama (this is public information, they're in the SPI). Liz was merely stating that the current IPs displaying that editor's characteristics also geolocated to there (which is, again, public information), which is why she blocked them. There's no outing of private information here. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User keeps adding links to common link targets in violation of WP:OVERLINK despite having been reverted and asked not to

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Newbie user SmithWilliamsJohnson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding links in violation of WP:OVERLINK.

Diffs:

• (after first talkpage message on 5 February)
• (after second message on 8 February)

There are more, and will most likely be more, because user doesn't change behaviour, and doesn't respond to messages on their talkpage.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, he needs to stop this. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Editor should be blocked, to at least get their attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked from main space. Izno (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella:, the editor has been indeffed from main space. I've undone some of their damage, but not all of it. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella and GoodDay: I've gone through and reverted a number of edits, but did not do so en-masse as I have been reviewing the merits of each and some are arguable improvements whereas others are overlink or just plain...strange editing decisions. There are still around 175 left for review... TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake invented names for greenlandic locations

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greenland § Fake invented names for greenlandic locations

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Riventree called another editor and myself a moron, said to track down the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an idiot. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: 'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Wikipedia to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA). Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:

• "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
• "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
• "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."

I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with "track down"? Yes, the tone is heated, but it means "find out who did it and discuss their actions". Nothing more. That's exactly what needs to be done in this case. Saying so is no a reason for a block. 216.126.35.221 (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:

... that the retelling of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the feminist perspective?

From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.

I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail [131] before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:

to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:

I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.

Dictionary.com says:

Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” [Second half of 1800s]

Collins says:

If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.

She had spent years trying to track down her parents.

I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.

The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.

There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.

Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page and And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page. Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says "Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there." on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment. This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how one sentence mentioning feminist retellings is "political flamebait" as Riventree said. Can someone explain to me how anyone could come to such a conclusion? It was going so nicely with a little over an hour and a half left on the main page. The DYK had a little over 3,000 clicks with no other issues, so I am stumped. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am also completely stumped, but I feel like it'd cross a line if I speculate on why they reacted so strongly to something completely uncontroversial. I've changed my own position to a topic ban but I admit to not being that confident that this will be the end of things. There's a slight chance they might change their ways so if it goes that route we can at least say we tried. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: commute block to topic ban

Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator explicitly said no) and JPxG's cowboy admin action should not stand, but a wheel war isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.

• Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:

  • [132][133]: unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research [134]; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
  • [135] Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
  • [136]: Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it[sic] feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
  • User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
    • Similarly on other talk pages Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?[137]
  • Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
  • [138] Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all. 1.

  Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.[139]. Follow up here:[140], though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenLipstickLesbian: He posted a sarcastic comment that contained links to Wikipediocracy, RESTRICT and something called Wikizero that doesn't seem to be up any more. The WPO link was to a thread that, even then, was seven years old, it referenced this ANI thread which was itself about WPO, has comments from quite a number of people who are banned for various reasons now, and hilariously, was closed by me.

  So, while I'm mildly amused to have discovered that, it looks like a personal issue with him not really liking the person who left the comment and trying to mock them by linking to material that he thought made them look bad. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from AMPOL per GLL. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also support indef topic ban from GENSEX per Special:GoToComment/c-Riventree-20250125002300-Clovermoss-20250124232900. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support for an indef topic ban from GENSEX. Their reaction to a rather mundane DYK both in the form of personal attacks and unsourced additions to Retelling does not give confidence that they can edit in this topic area neutrally [141]. Their characterization of a simple link to feminism as egregious flamebait [142] also gives cause for concern. The purpose of sanctions are to be preventative, rather than punitive, so the argument that they haven't really touched the subject area in the past doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me for why they should not have a TBAN. If their first reaction to seeing the word feminism was the kerfuffle above and they're still equating seeing a link to feminism as flamebait as well as making an unsourced edit seemingly toward their POV then I feel a TBAN from Gensex, broadly construed, is appropriate to prevent any further outbursts and disruptive POV editing. --Emm90 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support an indef topic ban from GENSEX. After the initial outburst and the follow up conversation(s) on their talkpage, I have no faith that Riventree can edit this area without letting their bias(es) affect their editing. -- Mike 🗩 16:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from GENSEX and American Politics, per GreenLipstickLesbian. I think the 2 week ban (rather than indef) was probably the correct response to the "idiot", "moron", "track them down" comments - I don't think they were civil, but not convinced they were threatening. I want to echo Clovermoss's thoughts below about how the user may not know what a TBAN is and so it should be made sure they understand it fully if applied. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Reinstate indef

A discussion is needed on this to prevent WP:WHEEL from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.

• Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Noting I'm a bit more conflicted given recent events (such as voorts expressing support for unblock). Support a trout to JPxG for the "cowboy" action (please discuss with the blocking admin in the future), but that isn't really a reason to hold it against the blocked editor. The recent DYK interaction was really bad and I worry about competence when someone thinks that pedestrian DYK is something outrageously offensive, but I generally prefer to see more before I would indef. The previous interactions with Andy also make me seriously uncomfortable, even if the victim sees it as all in the past. But it was five years ago. I'm generally a sucker for giving people second chances so maybe that's what should be done here. I support the previously proposed topic ban, given the pattern of behaviour in the area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unblock. Riventree has finally acknowledged why their comment was so egregious. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they are let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --Aquillion (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can’t for the life of me explain why the indef was overturned in the first place. The PAs were bad enough, especially when you consider how tame the blurb that instigated them is. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it would be better to see what they do after the two-week block and what it would merit, re-indeffing already is a bit premature. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. That was unacceptable, but a first offense, and two weeks is plenty. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  See GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above; this is not a first incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support and would support defining this as a community ban. The outburst was unacceptable on its own, but as it's been shown that it's the latest in a pattern of unacceptable actions constituting harassment, combined with a history of blatantly POV commentary and corresponding edits in article space, this editor should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think this would count as the exception mentioned there: A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban. This proposal was started because of JPxG's somewhat unconventional unblock. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's not the typical situation where a community block discussion can convert to a formal ban, which is why I said that I would support such a classification explicitly. But our peculiar terminology and process about blocks versus bans is very inside baseball, and in the grand scheme doesn't really matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well the reason I brought it up is that I'm under the impression it's somewhat easier to appeal a regular indefinite block compared to a CBAN. I think of the latter as being on a way different level in my scale of "a Wikipedian did things wrong". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I think an indef for an editor who has behaved the way they have, historically and recently, will be a positive preventative measure. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a massive overreaction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Given Cullen's description of the old edits, if Riventree wishes for a third chance to edit, they should demonstrate a much better understanding of the harassment policy than a <shamefaced grimace>[143]. Asking other constructive editors who actually do things like understand sourcing guidelines and NPOV to spend time putting up with personal attacks and harassment will drive them off. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support For the moment, I'd like to think they can get unblocked but I'm not convinced from what I've seen from them so far. However, I would also note my comments below about the alleged outing. What they posted was ill-advised, but it was one time five years ago and I think it is clear to those that can see it that their intent was directed not at the outed user but at the user they were replying to. I'm not defending it, it was a dumb thing to do, but I don't think we can honestly call it malicious outing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  switching to oppose/unblock I feel like at this point if I were a single admin reviewing this situation, I'd be inclined to unblock. Riventree knows they screwed up and has repeatedly said they will endeavor not to make such ill-advised and unpleasant comments in the future. The final warning from five years ago is not really related to anything that went on here. I do strongly disagree with the decision to shorten the block, but that was not Riventree's doing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Cullen328. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support for the purposes of bringing this back to the initial status and allowing the editor blocked to appropriately seek an unblock rather than having others do it for them. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Riventree's subsequent conversation(s) on their talkpage gives me no indication that they understand why they were blocked. -- Mike 🗩 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block, no opinion on topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - editor was given a warning, then for the same offence, indef blocked, then told that the block was reduced to two weeks. I feel it is very bad form to reimpose the indef at this point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC).
  
• Oppose agree with Rich Farmbrough that reinstating indef at this point would be very bad form. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose seriously? Are people not allowed to have bad days, get slapped for it, straight up say "I'm sorry - that was a good block, and I've cooled down now, and be released back to editing? This block isn't going anywhere on their record - if they're problematic again, handling them will be easy enough. Don't we care about WP:ROPE anymore? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a complete over-reaction and the most destructive behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 20:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rich Farmbrough - Their comments were really stupid (which RT acknowledges) however we all make mistakes and we all say stupid shit from time to time, Rich has hit the nail on the head - Indeffing, lowering to 2 weeks, indeffing .... that would be a whole new level of stupid!, Lets not reach that level please. –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the outing

You can see from Riventree's contribs in January 2020 that a few edits were revision deleted. Admins can see that the offending edit contained two offsite links. One seems to have been to something on Wikipedia Zero, which is defunct, so I don't know what it was but it probably was not the reason for the deletion. The other is to a quite old Wikipediocracy thread from 2013, which absolutely did contain what Wikipedia defines as outing, aimed at a now-blocked user who many believe is literally a nazi.The thread provided supposed evidence of linked online identities making extremely racist postings at places like Stormfront

Of course, the outing policy does not grant exemptions if the user outed happens to be despicable, but this was clearly not the intent of the edit, it was intended to mock another user, who was not outed (they edit under their real name) but was discussed/mocked in that same thread. It was still linking to outing, but that seems incidental, and as far I can tell has not been repeated. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm noting here that the victim of the revdelled harrassment supports an unblock: [144]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Riventree's response to this ANI thread: [145]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I've seen similar issues before, where someone says something that is open to interpretation and they insist they did not mean in it in the way it was taken. There's no real way to know what was in a person's head when they wrote something, but it does seems like Riventree at least understands that that was a poor choice of words, regardless of their actual intent. That's something. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My personal instinct is that they didn't realize it would be read that way, given they have no idea what ANI is or that they were being discussed here [146]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If this ends in a topic ban, I suggest the closing admin be very clear about what a topic ban actually is, because there's a good chance they wouldn't have any idea what that means either. I learned about ANI way before I learned about topic bans and I suspect that's the normal state of things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't outing require oversight, rather than revdel? (And, without wanting to make a big deal about it or accuse anyone of anything, is drawing attention to it on an administrative noticeboard prior to it being suppressed a good idea?) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think in the case of linking to twelve-year-old offsite material that, if one scrolls through it long enough, does contain attempted outing, revdel is probably sufficient. However, if you feel otherwise RFO it, it can't hurt to ask. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

On the choice of words

Taking the worst possible interpretation of someone's words is pretty egregious, and speaks to the same type of hair trigger that started this whole situation. Although I have received a few physical threats on Wikipedia, it is generally very, very unlikely that an established editor is going to have such a mindset, the worst we see is them going and looking for sympathy at Wikipediocracy and even that is pretty rare (getting the sympathy is even rarer). The default interpretation of track down the editor who is (or should be) find out which editor. I sympathise with those who took an alternative meaning, but this is Wikipedia, not Killing Eve. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC).

My block was not hair trigger. In the context of spewing hate-filled nonsense (something that is also very unlikely for an established editor), we should not be assuming that an editor stating that another editor should be "tracked down" is innocuous. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

voorts, however, it doesn't look like there is a firm consensus on what kind of sanction is appropriate or if it should be a long-term sanction. Well-intentioned editors can disagree and do disagree all of the time and sometimes opinion seems to be somewhat influenced by how long an editor has been editing here. That's not good or bad, it's just an observation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I've already said I'm okay with an unblock now. I was responding to Rich's suggestion that my initial block was hasty. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 109.223.231.201

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

109.223.231.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (addition of content not in existing cited source). Waxworker (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:2601:246:5480:710:0:0:0:8B04

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2601:246:5480:710:0:0:0:8B04 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP is on a mini vandalism spree, on articles and on talkpages, including mine, [147]. A block would be of assistance. KJP1 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin Dismissal of Accuracy Concerns: Violated WP:ADMINACCT

Socks put back in drawer. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm here to report an administrator’s conduct regarding an inquiry to review the the filters blocking my edits on a the page for "764 (Organization). I attempted to raise policy-based concerns about factual accuracy (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV), the admin replied extremely inappropriately; explicitly stating they do not care whether the information is factual, and refused to engage in a good-faith discussion. To quote the exact response: "I've got no sympathy for anything related to 764 and whether or not it is factually accurate to say 764 is allegedly connected to O9A. Plus, I am not interested in talking to a chat bot over a real human being. Go make your case somewhere else please." The violations to policy include the following: i. WP:ADMINACCT. Admins are expected to uphold Wikipedia’s content policies and engage in dispute resolution in good faith. Dismissing verifiability concerns contradicts this expectation. ii. WP:V and WP:NPOV – Admins should not be stating that do not care about factual accuracy on an article. This undermines Wikipedia’s commitment to reliable information. iii. WP:CIVIL – The admin's response was dismissive and unprofessional; discouraging constructive discussion. Instances to review: Diff link of their statement: 0xDeadbeef’s comment Article Admin in question I'm filing this report to ask the other admins to review this conduct and determine wither it aligns with Wikipedia's expectations for admins to uphold neutrality, accountability, and dispute resolution. This isn't a content dispute; this is about an admin openly, shamelessly disregarding Wikipedia's commitment to factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exophagism (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC) And update; they've since accused me of being tied to the organizations in question in this article, which I can't even being to express how out-of-line and inappropriate that is. Exophagism (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Maybe you used chatbots to write a post there? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC) *sigh* I considered writing a justification here, but I'd really appreciate input from a human instead of chatbotty language.. Special:AbuseLog/39937598 <- this is the original talk page message that OP wanted to add. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Anyways, the existence of someone who is hyperfocused on whether or not 764 (which has done really disgusting things from what I have read) is associated to other organizations just doesn't sit well with me. If I was more BITEy than normal because of this + the use of chatbots, so be it I guess. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC) What the hell is this? 58.124.50.172 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Couldn't figure out what the "former account I no longer use" is, mainly because there is an edit war flooding the history. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Is it not likely the other user who was tripping edit filters on the same talk page last week? Log here. REAL MOUSE IRL (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Considering the alarming edit history, the subsequent drama and the chatbot use on display I think Exophagism is WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Considering he's admitted to using two accounts, threatens admins, tries to link inappropriate material on talk pages and his only mainspace edit is taking a huge chunk of sourced text from an article...yyeeaahh. I'm not commenting on whether he's connected to the subject, but trying to scrub links to O9A that are well sourced is kind of...suspect.RKT7789 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP: 210.3.50.94

Hi, I wanted to report this IP as they have been adding unsourced information to 2024–25 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season repeatedly, even after being told to stop by multiple users. This is my first time reporting something so i apologize if i am doing it incorrectly. Looking at their past edits, this seems to be a behavioural pattern as a lot of their edits have been reverted.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.3.50.94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sria-72 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sria-72 You must alert the IP editor of this report. See the pink notice box at the top of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I did. Sria-72 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait nevermind, my edit didnt save, oops. I will notify them now. Sria-72 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that Sria-72 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sria-72,

Rather than being about unsourced content, mostly what I see yesterday is that they were in an edit war with User:2001:67C:2710:F205:6CE1:2798:2CD3:1F3D over one edit. Can you highlight what 2 or 3 edits you found inappropriate? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

They actually started this earlier. This is the first edit they made to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024–25_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season&diff=prev&oldid=1274374050. I had to revert this several times before sending them a message on their talk page telling them that there isn't any official agency that classified the storm as a VITC. They then changed it again, knowing what they were doing was wrong, and said "ban me" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024–25_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season&diff=prev&oldid=1274415331. they did this twice, now using the joint typhoon warning center's 1-min sustained winds and putting a value which is blatantly incorrect and not stated in the source that is used for the section (see: https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/ATCF/JTWC/bsh132025.dat) if it were actually a category 5, there would be a 140 kt wind value (at the 8th column, not counting the only comma columns) Sria-72 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sria-72, thank you for supplying these, it helps to have concrete examples to consider. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 200.84.79.3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

200.84.79.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Uh, wow. It looks like this goes beyond just this one IP and has been ongoing for some time. I'll protect the pages involved. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism by IP on adjacent /64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Range 2601:602:9700:EFC0::/64 has been blocked multiple times for vandalism with the latest block lasting one month in December 2024. In January 2025, the same editor (based on the same edit summary pattern of article subject is AWESOME or caps lock edit summaries) popped up on an adjacent /64 2601:602:9700:690::/64 and continued their vandalism spree. Requesting another /64 range block or a broader range block depending on the potential for collateral damage. Parksfan1955 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP is also using 24.22.131.125, so I have blocked them for 3 months. I have blocked 2601:602:9700:690::/64 for 3 months also. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by User:Visaa11

• Visaa11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently here an IP (97.77.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) said that they are the blocked user Visaa11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Visaa11 has recently added a similar comment to their user talk page. Janhrach (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it was just a quote from the him that I was feturing on the sandbox due to it being very long that at a glance I would think it would be an unfinished article. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, notice those quotation marks. They are showing that it is a quote from the user. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

He also wrote that for a challenge I gaave him to write the longest sentence he can make. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also notice that this is a school IP and can be shared by many users. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@EldinHamza2011 may explain. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You contradict yourself; you said you thought it was an unfinished article. Janhrach (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I contradict myself too much. I wish I didn't, but that's just how my brain works. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if what the IP claims is true, Visaa11 said they evaded their block (the english version of wikipedia where i am anonymous ⁊ everyone knows me by my IP address due to my original account which was called Visaa11 being banned due to “disruptive editing”), so at least prolonging Visaa11's autoblock is warranted. Janhrach (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I also saw a part after that saying that their block was unjusted and they were just contributing (which i think is stupid as i was just trying to contribute to wikipedia). 97.77.82.187 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Methinks 97* may be protesting a bit too much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked IP one week for block evasion or meatpuppetry. Special:Diff/1274499742 and Special:Diff/1274500286, four minutes apart, plus all the similar interests in their edits. The most charitable interpretation of IPs comment: He also wrote that for a challenge I gaave him to write the longest sentence he can make. would be meatpuppetry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Can someone revoke their Visa (TPA)? I see them writing a whole load of gibberish the previous day. Borgenland (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

What gibberish? 71.78.136.213 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

^--- This IP is obviously evading the block as well. Just resubmitted an article draft by Visaa11 and reverted their edits back into an article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

To admins: revoke Visaa11's TPA, please. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Visaa11&action=history. Janhrach (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from 97.77.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive IP changing Dari to Persian and other POV edits

There is a disruptive IP constantly replacing Dari with Persian in Afghanistan-related articles, along with other POV edits. They make a large number of these edits at once then return the next day to restore these edits and make new ones from a new IP. See for example this edit by 5.123.116.228 to provinces of Afghanistan. The same IP has went ahead to do the same to the articles about the provinces. The edits seem to be mostly coming from 5.123.0.0/16 and 5.124.0.0/16 but I am not sure if a range block is feasible here. I also requested protection for Hafizullah Amin but they are still disrupting many other articles. They have received plenty of warnings before e.g. User talk:5.124.47.26, but they are still continuing the same behavior. Mellk (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Still ongoing. Mellk (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

AK942000's civility

• AK942000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently got into a tiff with AK942000 over adding uncited information and original research to articles, particularly The Bravery (album) and Smile Like You Mean It. I have explained to them multiple times that they need to cite what they put into articles, but they don't understand, insisting that they have done more research than I have simply because they claimed to have looked around and patched information together from what they found. That doesn't take away the fact they have refused to cite their sources and may have violated WP:SYNTH in the process. Furthermore, when I explained to them on their talk page that what they were doing was violating Wikipedia policy, they posted a message on my own talk page where they referred to me as a "snobbish elitist", "insufferable and self-centered, and nitpicky", and "holier-than-thou", claiming I am "abusing my power". I don't find that to be very civil conduct. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

AK942000, what power do you think is being abused? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

ResolutionsPerMinute's Abuse of Power/Removing paragraphs/record dates in Music Articles

And once again Res, unfairly removing valuable information from pages (Like An Honest Mistake, Smile Like You Mean It, The Bravery (Album) will get you backlash (especially when other pages for their release dates/recording date also have no citations like Jenny Was A Friend Of Mine or Hot Fuss). It is when you're actively and repeatedly removing bits and pieces of the articles even when the cited sources in question literally have proof or hint when it was recorded and the release date, is where I have a problem. If you want to contradict yourself several times by removing paragraphs, and recording dates, and saying "uncited" sources but then not provide sources for other songs/release dates, then I have every right to call you out on the hypocrisy and your behavior. Sometimes the citations in question also don't even link to anything. --AK942000 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@AK942000: a single editor is not responsible for all material that has ever been added to Wikipedia over decades. You, however, are absolutely responsible for the content you add to articles. So, from this moment until the end of your Wikipedia editing days, ensure that you include reliable sources when adding or changing article content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I am also warning you against edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Off-site harassment from Anatoly Karlin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anatoly Karlin a writer for the far-right The Unz Review has just created an attack page about me on his website and is linking to it on Wikipedia. He links to this website here [148].

On his website he claims I am a banned user and many other absurd and false accusations. Some back story on this was put on my user-page last month [149]. I am already in contact with the the Wikimedia healthy and safety team who are investigating the off-site abuse from these far-right trolls but basically last year I made some edits on the Human Diversity Foundation Wikipedia article. After making the edits the members of this far-right group including its founder Emil Kirkegaard have been targeting me on and off-site, emailing me abuse and doing anything they can to try and get me banned. Their angle has been to promote an absurd conspiracy theory that I am a sock-puppet or meat-puppet of another banned Wikipedia user.

It should be noted that Karlin has strong links to the Human Diversity Foundation and has met the owner of it and has actively defended the organization on his social media. It is obvious he has been sent here by the HDF to continue this harassment campaign.

I have over 54,000 edits here, over 340 article creations. I am not a banned user, nor am I sharing an account. I appreciate if an admin can rev del Karlin's edit where he links to the attack page against me. Veg Historian (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Karlin linking to his website attack page that he has created about me in more edits [150]. This is severe harassment. Can an admin please look at this. Veg Historian (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This looks like useful background to this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to unpack this a piece at a time. Anatoly Karlin did not out you as you linked to your offsite rational wiki identity here: Special:Diff/1251319916. Correct? That takes outing off the table.

PS: Others please jump in and help. There's a lot here to unpack. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have emailed the oversight Wikimedia team. Karlin has created an attack page about me on his website with various dox of a real life person, deliberately confusing my identity with this other user in an attempt to get me banned. The website also falsely accuses me of many things such as losing Noah Carl his job from Cambridge University and makes various legal threats. Veg Historian (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think accusing someone of being a sock of a banned user is a personal attack unless made at WP:SPI. That said I have no idea whether VH/PG is actually AngloPyramidologist. On the internet nobody knows if you're a dog. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems irrelevant, since it's still an attack page anyways. It should definitely not be allowed to be linked to. Silverseren^C 00:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, see here I have been on video call to the RationalWiki Foundation [151], [152]. These same HDF people tried to get me banned at RationalWiki after they spammed RW the same website attacking me, but they failed. No users on RationalWiki voted to ban me because I am not AP [153]. The Human Diversity Foundation and Karlin have been pushing the conspiracy theory I am AP in an attempt to get me banned. I have been harassed by these far-right group for quite a few months now. If you check the recent stuff at RW you will see that Captain Occam has admitted to writing some of the material on Karlin's website. This is all revenge from a group of far-right trolls against me for making edits on the HDF Wikipedia article. It is an organized harassment campaign and the WMF are well aware of it. The only contact I have ever had with AP is some emails about the founder of HDF, I disclosed these at the time. Veg Historian (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, Veg Historian is a responsible and trustworthy editor, and it looks to me like he is getting targeted just for having made NPOV edits. This edit: [154], comes as part of an RfD, where there are also some IPs taking part, and they seem to be acting on Karlin's behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I've read the outside article and looked at the postings here. It is disruptive for Anatoly Karlin to use an off-wiki page to address an on-site issue. This is like saying "look on Wikipediocracy to understand my concern". While not taking any side on the accuracy of the accusations, any such accusations should be addressed on-wiki or not at all. I will delete the links and refer Anatoly Karlin to either post here at AN/I or contact ArbCom for any concerns they have. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have left the following message on @SublimeWik's (Anatoly Karlin's) user talk page: If you have a concern about on-wiki behavior by an editor here, post about it on Wikipedia. Linking to an offsite page is disruptive, as it prevents proper discussion and review of your concerns. You can post about it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or contact ArbCom if you feel the information needs to be confidential (e.g., it would "out" an editor). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Note to others: so far, all I have addressed is linking to an outside site and the possibility of outing. I have not addressed whether this is inappropriate harassment deserving of on-wiki action, and obviously the other issues of off-site abuse have been referred by OP appropriately to Trust and Safety. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I've looked around and found other places onsite where there are links to purported "investigations" into VH that were posted by SW, and I've redacted those too. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To briefly address this entire discussion. I know Kirkegaard, but have no relationship to the HDF. I have only ever commented and edited on Wikipedia under this handle. I republished Ghost of Lomax's article on my website and linked to it here because it contains strong and important evidence about PG/VH's activities and likely identities, which I consider to be germane in light of (1) the accusations he constantly levies against me across this site - sockpuppetry; anti-vegan activism; being an associate of Richard Spencer; White Nationalism; etc., which themselves all originate from AP's writings on RationalWiki; and (2) his active involvement on pages and even redirects that somehow relate to me. I never made any legal threats (though amusingly, the individual known as AP *did* serve me a lawsuit a few weeks ago, albeit he retracted it soon afterwards). In any case, my goal here is not to get PG/HV banned - that is up to your own policing procedures - but to (1) give context to the inaccurate characterizations made about me at The Unz Review article (addressed in Talk pages - for a start, contra PG/VH's claims, I quit UR in 2021), and (2) more broadly question the legitimacy of PG/VH's involvement in topics that relate to me. SublimeWik (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

If you feel that content should be corrected, that's fine, but you should not be posting your theories about who other Wikipedia editors are, as a way of impugning their credibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I posted a correction request last March. At the most elemental level (objective facts), I do not blog at The Unz Review and haven't done so for 4 years. SublimeWik (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

By republishing Ghost of Lomax's article you are taking responsibility for its content and the consequences of posting it. If you want anything to be done, you need to properly put together evidence and either post it here (ANI) or provide to Arbcom. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have more uninvolved editors keeping eyes on The Unz Review. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This wasn't on my to-do list (see above), but OK, I'll summarize this evidence and post it to ANI when time permits later this month. SublimeWik (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Karlin knows the HDF founder and it is very likely he emailed him to come here. I am not AP nor have I met the guy; as far as I know he has no interest or involvement with veganism. Anyone can easily find AP online, he has a public internet profile. He is a bald man in his 30s. I look nothing like him and the video call over at RW quickly proved that. I did not create Karlin's RationalWiki article. All logs at RationalWiki are public and visible for people to see. I have been researching veganism and vegetarianism for over 25 years and I spend my life publishing on its history with several other academics. 90% of my edits on this website are on vegetarianism or veganism. I founded WP:VAV and I have improved 1000s of articles. A quick look at Karlin's Wikipedia account shows he is not a productive editor. It is obviously not true to say I am attacking Karlin on Wikipedia; I have been here many years. Until October last year when I edited the Human Diversity Foundation Wikipedia article nobody off-site cared about my Wikipedia account. I only have a handful of edits on the UNZ Review article. I reverted Karlin because he removed a reliable source.

Re the anti-vegan thing, here is what Karlin wrote on X.com "I am eating more beef, not just because it's healthy and delicious, but because I get a warm feeling, a real sense of pleasure, knowing that I'm voiding the efforts of some Green vegan loser in the West - as well as doing my small part to help Tropical Hyperborea along. The anti-vegan claim is accurate. Nobody has "attacked" Karlin by claiming he is anti-vegan. It is sourced to his own words. He says vegans are "losers".

If you check the UNZ Review, anyone can read Karlin's articles, example "Why Homosexuality Shouldn't be Promoted". He isn't a pleasant individual. If an experienced user wants to honestly criticize anything I have done I will listen but this far-right group doing these attacks against me and promoting these conspiracies about my account, are not trustworthy at all. It is just revenge campaign because I edited their article. I am not AP and I proved it but Karlin will not remove that misinformation from his website. He is attempting to blacklist my account by deliberately confusing my identity with this other banned user. As I have explained to the WMF privately about these attacks; this harassment for the last couple of months has been damaging my mental health. This nonsense is ruining my editing time here. Veg Historian (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Objection: I do not see how this is a relevant or productive tangent. That said, I do want to highlight one thing here: a a search of my Twitter account will reveal 10 mentions of "vegan" over my 16 years and ~80k Tweets there (one of which was positive, the rest mostly just neutral observations). In fact, I already noted this at the sockpuppetry discussion in a conversation that PH/VH initiated, and which I did not solicit. In any case, 10 mentions of "vegan" over 16 years obviously do not make one an "anti-vegan activist", but this does not stop PG/VH from claiming that I am one. Perhaps this observation is relevant to keep in mind as regards their other claims. SublimeWik (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not being honest. The Human Diversity Foundation that you are associated with is an anti-vegan organization (most of its members support the carnivore diet) and this is one of the reasons that they have also been attacking me off-site. Because you are directly linking to your X.com above. Here is another tweet from you calling vegans mentally ill and not rational. "There's a lot of mentally ill people amongst the vegan types (as you see in the comments). Most are not even truly rational, e.g. oppose eating things like shrimp and crabs (which have ant-level numbers of neurons)" [155]. In the same tweet you call vegan food "shit". You have directly called vegans "losers", "mentally ill", "not even truly rational" and vegan food "shit". If you are not an anti-vegan, nobody is. Let's not play this game because it is easy to refute anything you say. If you have something to say against my account, file it with Arb Com. This is a waste of time. Veg Historian (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

We can't control what happens at RationalWiki or X or a personal website. We can only affect edits that happen here. If you have worries about off-Wikipedia harrassment, you need to contact ARBCOM and/or Trust & Safety which it sounds like you have already done.

We have multiple editors claiming they are being harrassed, allegations that anonymous editors are not who they say they are but the fact is that we are all anonymous on Wikipedia. We don't know that editors are who they claim to be. The only place where it MIGHT be appropriate to associate a Wikipedia account with a BLP is at SPI and even there those statements might be redacted. I also think it is inappropriate to associate active accounts with LTAs of the past on a noticeboards or user talk page which I stumbled on earlier when I was looking into this case. This is definitely casting aspersions so please bring any suspicions you have to SPI and let a checkuser confirm them or say that these associations are unproven. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I can't tell from the indent who you are accusing of aspersions, but I think it's entirely appropriate to redact posts onsite, that link to supposed "investigations" offsite, that make unfounded accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Tryptofish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz I think you might not be fully aware about what is going on here. Anatoly Karlin has created an entire webpage about me on his website falsely accusing me of being a banned user and also accusing me of many other ridiculous things such as claiming I lost HDF employees their jobs such as Noah Carl. Carl lost his job because he was publishing racist research and there was a full investigation into him from Cambridge University, it had nothing to do with me. This is what I mean. This is a delibrate attack on me and is trying to blacklist my Wikipedia account with false and malicious claims.

What is creepy about this, is that I changed my Wikipedia handle to "Veg historian" recently because of Karlin's and the HDF's off-site harassment website. On the very same day (even a few hours) after renaming my account they updated their article with my new account Wikipedia name. All these people want to do is wreck my Wiki editing time here and destroy my life's work on veg history which they have threatened to do. Karlin is pretending to be the victim here but he hasn't explained why he has created this attack-page about me. I have no website on this individual and outside of Wikipedia I have never talked to him. I personally think Karlin should be sanctioned for creating this off-site attack page that mentions my Wikipedia account and then coming over here deliberately linking to it to antagonise me. Is this normal? Which other Wikipedia editors have to put up with this? I just want these people to leave me alone and go back to normal editing. Veg Historian (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I understand this, I've spent at least an hour looking into this case, reading that webpage, looking at contribution history of editors and sockpuppets who are blocked. I now know more than I want to know. I can see why this is distressing to you but it's unclear to me what you want to happen on Wikipedia because of activities that have happened elsewhere. Admins have no power or influence over what private people post on their websites. The only action I can see we can do is revision delete the link if it is posted on here. This is not dismissing what is happening to you, I'm just pointing out the limits of what we can do HERE, at Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess we could impose an IBan if the other editor agrees to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I am not expecting Wikipedia to do anything off-site. A UK police report against the "Ghost of Lomax" website has already been filed. The website is currently down and that is the reason that Karlin ported it word to word to his website. The owner Emil Kirkegaard (also a banned Wikipedia user) of the Human Diversity Foundation is the one who funded the "Ghost of Lomax" and a man is running it in the UK. It only has two writers - Anatoly Karlin and Captain Ocaam. The latter is also banned on Wikipedia. I personally think Karlin should be sanctioned for this harassment. He isn't just involved with it off-site, he is linking to the article that he is actively hosting on his website to intimidate me here on Wiki. Off-site these people are coordinating these attacks. I have been in communication with admins about it before and now they are ramping up their tactics. They were using IPs last year that were blocked, so that is why they are now using Karlin. Veg Historian (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't exactly one sided though. Veg Historian has openly edited (though he can hardly be considered a main contributor to) Karlin's biography on RationalWiki, which by Wikipedia standards is an egregious attack page (as many of their biographies are) that would be swiftly deleted if it were ever created here. Karlin has a right to be upset about VH contributing to an attack page that comes up prominently every time someone Google's his name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That said, Karlin has said many things off-wiki that could reasonably be construed to be a violation of WP:NONAZIS and it's really questionable whether he is here to build an encyclopedia (which VH clearly is). Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I only ever added well-sourced content to RW. For example here is one of Karlin's comments from the UNZ "Several years back, in San Francisco, a black woman tried to solicit money from me, and began haranguing me about my racism when I walked past her. I told the fat (N-word) bitch to fuck off in precisely that language. She lapsed into a sort of slack-jawed shock for several seconds, allowing me to walk away unmolested. Clearly she had never been spoken to from a position of white privilege" [156]. It can't be a crime to cite someone's own words. If WP:NONAZIS applies to off-site then this guy should be banned for the outright racist stuff he has been posting for years but from my reading of NONAZIS I think it only applies to what users write on Wiki. Veg Historian (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW if anyone wants to know what the "Ghost of Lomax" webpage that Karlin is hosting is referring to. It is Abd Lomax, a globally banned Wikipedia user who actually tried to sue the WMF foundation and lost. Imagine creating a website dedicated to a globally banned Wikipedia user and thinking he is a credible source. Veg Historian (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Veg Historian, why would you create a redirect for Anatoly Karlin which is the identity SublimeWik has claimed they are? And your target article is a company they say they don't work for any more. That is about as far as you can get from keeping your distance from each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Unz Review is not a respectable company. They publish holocaust denial and alt-right content. The redirect you are talking about was created in April 2024. In March 2024, Karlin was editing the article, removing WP:RS from it [157]. I created the redirect because he is clearly notable for his involvement with Unz Review. As of 9/2/2025 all of Karlin's anti-Semitic and racist blog posts at The Unz Review are still live [158]. In total he wrote for them for 15 years and authored 2300 articles. The redirect is clearly justified per notability criteria. It is not "harassment" to factually redirect his name to a magazine he wrote for 15 years, his involvement with the website is also supported by WP:RS. Veg Historian (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I was not arguing that there was no reason for this Redirect editorially. It's now being debated at RFD and despite the SublimeWik's objections it looks like the redirect will be kept. I just thought that if there was this much bad history between the two of you, if you are so worried about threats, then you would stay far, far away from everything having to do with this subject, not creating Redirects with their name. It wasn't your editorial judgment I was questioning, it just seemed like this situation was a headache for you so I don't know why you are keeping some ties with this person, this editor, their whole organization. If it was me, I would be keeping my distance and returning my focus to vegetarianism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I was only attacked from these far-right people since November 2024 (this was after I made some edits in October on their organization article). Prior to December 2024 this Karlin person was not attacking me; his main enemy is that AP user who is banned from here.

The redirect was made in April 2024. If you check my contributions they are nearly all on veganism and vegetarianism. I probably have less than 60 in total on any of this far-right stuff out of over 50,000 edits. I am trying to keep my distance and go back to normal editing but these people will not allow it. Karlin didn't publish that article about me today, it was put on his website about a week ago. Him returning to Wikipedia and pasting in the link on site is just another WP:Hound attempt. You are correct that I shouldn't have reverted Karlin today on the Unz Review and I should have just avoided him, but this guy is actively attacking me off-site, posting nonsense about me on social media and then he comes here to whitewash a Wikipedia article that mentions him. He is not a good-faith editor. Veg Historian (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, there was a lot to unpack here. I tried to explicitly nibble away piece by piece by my posts above, but thought I'd summarize my thoughts here, as it may be hard to follow piecemeal. Many accusations were posted above. I've only focused on those I thought were potentially actionable. And thanks to Liz for her experienced intervention here.

1. Is the linking of Veg Historian to their rational wiki name outing? No. Veg Historian posted the linkage on Wikipedia.
2. Is SublimeWik responsible for the content of the article they posted on their site even though it was originally written by another? Yes.
3. Is an off-wiki site an appropriate place to report a Wikipedia issue? No. It doesn't allow for proper accountability and discussion.
4. Is it appropriate to link to the off-wiki site reporting a Wikipedia issue? No. It is disruptive. Allows for casting accusations without proper process.
5. Is linking to that offwiki site actionable harassment? I haven't formed an opinion yet. I believe this is more suitable for a more-experienced admin to handle.
6. Who handles off-wiki harassment? Trust and safety is a good location. English Wikipedia admins have no ability to address this, with the sole exception of actions on-wiki that support the off-wiki harassment, for example, linking to offsite harassing posts.
7. Do we sanction people who off-wiki express hateful views? No, we hold people responsible for their on-site actions, not their internal beliefs. If they are able to edit here without being hateful they can remain. See WP:HID. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

While we are on this subject, I advise any admin to look at the history of the The Unz Review talk-page [159]. In March 2024, Karlin's comments have been hidden and striked. Was he trying to WP:DOX another user? I have sent a complaint to the oversight team today about Karlin (the links to his website he was linking to are still visible in the logs) but I had absolutely nothing to do with these other edits made in 2024 and I have no idea what that was about. Veg Historian (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To address the "discussion" since I left:

(1) As I stated, I have no relationship to the HDF and do not coordinate with them - if I am not allowed to make claims about PG/VH's identity here (well evidenced ones at that), why are their theories (purely speculative/projective ones) about me allowed to stand without challenge or censure?

(2) Please note that I did not initiate any of the interactions that I had with PG/VH here (e.g. see the sockpuppet investigation), and that's despite their verified record of hostile editing against me at both RationalWiki and on Wikipedia (setting up the redirect to The Unz Review which has major issues with balance). I think their claims regarding "harassment" should be viewed with this important context in mind.

(3) I would also like to note PG/VH continues to intentionally lie about the most easily verifiable things about my bio, such as my "anti-vegan activism" (= 10 mentions of "vegan" in 16 years on Twitter) and the length of time I spent at The Unz Review ("wrote for them for 15 years" - 2015 to 2021 is six years, leaving soon after it started hosting Holocaust denial from authors who are not me). I reiterate my view that this record of misrepresentation about things that are easily verifiable is important context.

(4) I will also like to note that I have made no personal attacks on PG/VH beyond linking to a well-evidenced investigation about their identity that I consider to be important context for their hostile editing against me and resumed campaign to have me banned. (As per above, I accept the explanation that normal Wikipedia talk pages are not the appropriate forum for that, and so will forward any such arguments to ANI once time permits). The converse has sadly not been true.

(5) While regarding this issue as irrelevant and off-topic in the context of this conversation, but since PG/VH insists on making it one without censure, some comments on WP:NONAZIS and adjacent claims - I am not a White nationalist, Neo-Nazi, or related (except to a small but SEO-privileged faction of RationalWiki individuals who have mined my millions of words of output including obscure Reddit exchanges with trolls for defamatory purposes). Writing blog posts about how Trump is bad and mocking MAGA on X (Ctrl-F "MAGA" or "rightoids" or whatever on my X) and espousing things like artificial wombs (in 2017) and synthetic meat etc. is not a typical WN profile. In fact I would say that if I am a WN and Neo-Nazi, then that would also describe Trump, Musk, and well more than half the US population. SublimeWik (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Note, it is easy to prove what Karlin is saying is false. He has been active on the far-right Unz Review for more than 6 years and was commenting on the website up until 2023.

• Why Homosexuality Shouldn't be Promoted "In other words, it’s a valid public health policy to make homosexuality culturally unattractive, as opposed to glamorizing it". Written by Karlin in 2013.
• Mussolini Did Nothing Wrong "From what I can figure out, though, he really didn’t do anything wrong – at least not substantially more so than any other countries at the time". Written by Karlin in 2019.
• Negrolatry, #BlackLivesMatter, and the West's New Religion, which claims "What you have in #BlackLivesMatter is an emerging religion, complete with its own pantheon of saints and martyrs and the latest iteration of what some have called negrolatry, or the Cult of the Magical Negro". Written by Karlin in 2020.

That is more than 6 years writing for the Unz Review.

If this guy isn't far-right, then nobody is. A peer-reviewed paper on The Unz Review Wikipedia article describes Karlin as a promoter rof "antisemitic conspiracy theories" [160]. It is not "harrassment" to link to a peer-reviewed paper. Karlin has also written in his own words that vegans are "mentally ill" and "losers". If he isn't anti-vegan nobody is. Unlike the attacks on me this user is doing off-site, deliberately confusing my identity with another user and writing harmful things about my account which are not true, all I have done is quote this users own words above. I have never attacked him. This user also says he has no involvement with the Human Diversity Foundation but has admitted in this thread to knowing the owner and there are photographs of them online together only last year at a far-right event (if needed I can email this to Arb Com).

Note this user has less than 70 edits here and is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. If no action is going to be taken against him for spamming in his attack page against me on site, then this should probably be closed and Arb Com can deal with it. Veg Historian (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The note to the 2013 article: "Republished from AKarlin.com by permission of author or representative"). My previous archives as an independent blogger were incorporated into The Unz Review in January 2015 - this is easily verifiable information.

There is strong evidence linking AP/RationalWiki to the Murphy article which the Jackson Jr. paper cites as an example of citogenesis (more details at the redirect discussion). My views on the connection between AP and PH/VH are known so I discussing this further seems redundant.

Correct, I know Emil Kirkegaard and met him and numerous other intelligence researchers at ISIR 2024 in Zurich (I don't hide behind anonymity and a forest of online aliases). ISIR is a "far right event" in the view of RationalWiki sectants but not of the political mainstream or objective reality. SublimeWik (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

At best this is stupid off wiki drama that should be handled off wiki. At worst this is User:Anglo Pyramidologist and User:Deleet sending proxies here to cause disruption. MartianTechnician (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard is a far-right person who runs the Human Diversity Foundation that was recently exposed by Hope not Hate [161]. Your claim to have met him "numerous" times is highly suspect.

SublimeWik, I am not AP or a banned or paid account. I have already proven I am not AP because I have been on video call [162], [163]. Other users at Wikipedia have also seen me through video call. I run a Wikiproject here dedicated to veganism and vegetarianism. I have dropped you an email. What is it going to take for you to leave me alone and stop harassing me off-site? Can we have a video call about this? I am on discord. You would quickly see I am not AP and this harassment campaign you are doing off-site is unpleasant. I want to resume normal editing at Wikipedia (I have over 340 article creations here and this year another 100 to be created), you are ruining my editing time here. Veg Historian (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an admin would talk to Sublimewik about these continued unproven allegations of sock-puppetry that has continued to make in this thread. I have been here a long time and I take Wikipedia very seriously. If there is a sock-puppet allegation the correct place for this is WP:SPI. It is obvious Karlin will not file there because he has no evidence I am a sock and this is just a WP:Hounding and an attempt to blacklist my account with negativity. These repeated false claims of socking are clearly a violation of WP:NPA. Either open an SPI or cease making these false allegations please. Veg Historian (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have neither the desire to interact with you any more than I must, nor any good reason to, because a video call per se can't prove or disprove sockpuppetry. I do not consider republishing a sourced investigation off-site to be harassment. More to the point, off-site "drama" is probably not germane to this discussion, as several editors have pointed out. I have agreed with the editors that any future concrete allegations of sockpuppetry will be made through the official channels reserved for this, namely ANI or Arbcom. SublimeWik (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't accept the equivalence. Zero evidence of me acting on behalf of Kirkegaard beyond my acquaintance with him has been provisioned - just empty allegations from someone who has demonstrably lied about me multiple times just within this thread. Beyond the laughable notion that I have no reason to dispute the redirect on my own name/Wikipedia's coverage of my work at The Unz Review beyond serving some hypothetical agenda of Kirkegaard. SublimeWik (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been unable to show any "lies" I have written in this thread. As a historian everything I cite is well sourced. You said you have only written for the UNZ review for 6 years, I easily proved this false by citing a homophobic article you wrote on the UNZ Review in 2013 [164]. You still made comments on the UNZ review as late as 2023. You said you have never criticized veganism. On your own posts which were cited, you have called vegans "mentally ill", "losers", "not truly rational" and vegan food "shit". You have provided no explanation to why you have written these offensive things. When I ask you about that you deliberately avoid explaining.

You say there is "zero evidence" of yourself acting on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard but you admitted in this very conversation you have met him "numerous" times. You are not acting in good-faith. Your Wikipedia account has less than 70 edits and you have never contributed here. If you had any evidence I am a sock-puppet you would have posted an SPI by now. The fact that you do not want to go on a video call to talk about this shows that you definitely have something to hide. If no action is going to be taken about your off-site harassment that you were linking to on here; then an admin should close this. I will not respond to you again. And well done, you have wasted 5 hours of my editing time today by making all these false allegations. Veg Historian (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I explained, repeatedly, that I wrote for The Unz Review from Jan 2015 to Oct 2021; earlier material was written for my personal blog, which was copied to UR's archives when I joined (see the note at the bottom of such posts, "republished by permission of author or representative". Your allegation that I wrote for UR for more than a decade are false, have been proven to be false, and yet you demonstratively continue to insist otherwise. Your specific allegation was that I am an anti-vegan activist; activism presumably presupposed something more than a disparaging Twitter shitpost once every 2-3 years. I am not an anti-vegan "activist" by any sane definition of "activism". I did not say that I met Kirkegaard "numerous times"; I literally wrote, "met him and numerous other intelligence researchers at ISIR 2024", a conference that you calumnied as a "Far Right event" (if so ETH Zurich hosting such an event should be a major scandal and you should complain to their management). Though I fail to see how this has relevance to anything even if I was Kirkegaard's roommate - as if I have no legitimate interest of my own in what my name brings up on Wikipedia. SublimeWik (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

We are very much at the do not engage level, Veg Historian. You presented the ANI thread and the evidence, that was all that is needed. Getting drawn into arguments with SublimeWik in this thread isn't helping your argument, it is letting them draw you down to their own level to make you look bad too. Please stop engaging right now. Silverseren^C 18:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

+1. --JBL (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to have a lot more to say, but I want to strongly endorse what Silverseren just said and JBL also endorsed. VH, please stop engaging with SW in this thread. Both of you, stop addressing one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• In the exchange above, VH referred to some talk page comments, at Talk:The Unz Review, by SW, that were oversighted. I've looked to see what this was. The oversighting was done by Primefac, beginning with an edit by SW, and here is a permalink to the first "clean" version after the redaction: [165]. It's quite clear what was basically going on there. SW posted an "Article Correction Request" that was similar to what is there now ([166]), with a part that reads: "The RationalWiki article in question was mostly written by (Redacted)." It doesn't take a genius to figure out who SW was referring to, and it's plain to see it was oversighted. This was in 2024. And I feel it is very concerning that SW did that, and apparently is continuing to do it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned about some IP accounts. Above, I linked to this RfD. It was started by an IP, then joined in by another IP who volunteered that both IPs were the same. SW, obviously, has been a registered account for quite a bit longer than that, but it wasn't SW who initiated the RfD; he only started commenting there later. And there has been a history of both IP addresses being involved in editing about Unz, Karlin, or related SPIs: [167], [168], with one IP address recently being blocked: [169]. It looks to me like there is something more organized than just the SW registered account going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  As someone who has been a rationalwiki editor for a while, this is probably an lta there that loves to instigate drama whenever he gets the chance to based on his writing style and the fact that the ip geolocates to florida like the ips at rw.

  MartianTechnician (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  If you see the earlier edits they were editing an lta page about that lta’s involement in rationalwiki, so this is very likely the same person that instigates drama involving any rationalwiki editor. MartianTechnician (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Folks, STOP! The complaint initially brought up here was addressed. I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of the issues underlying this, but there are limits to what can be done here. And addressing disparate issues (e.g., LTAs, sockpuppetry, article fairness) in a single thread is confusing and decreases the chances of useful action. For example, if you have concerns that an LTA is active, open up a new thread to discuss that.
Furthermore, a number of the issues being brought up here are not appropriate for AN/I, particularly since this is not a useful place to address them. For example, if you have concerns about sockpuppetry, bring it up at SPI. If you have concerns about rational wiki, bring it up there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can block me if you want, but I definitely think it is within ANI's scope to address what SW has been posting onsite, and whether it violates our harassment policy. So no, I'm not stopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying the postings are inappropriate for ANI. I'm saying that this individual thread has gone out of control. This thread now has a large number of different accusations by different parties that are all interleaved with one-another. Note my comment in a single thread is confusing and decreases the chances of useful action. If you want to discuss on-wiki harassment, start a different thread and hope that we can keep the discussion focused on the topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, I really do. A big part of the problem is the wall of text created by the two combatants. If one strips that away (I don't feel empowered to hat it, but you or another admin could), this gets a lot less complicated. VH has told me at his talk page that he agrees to no longer edit anything about Unz, and I made this edit to the page: [170], which should presumably satisfy SW. One could keep this ANI thread open a bit longer, to see whether SW really accepts it, as well as if any other admins are able to add any useful information, and if the problems don't clear up, I will open a new thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long: [171]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The simple solution to the ip instigator is to not feed the troll. He has already dwindled down activity at rw as a result of people realizing that he feeds off attention. MartianTechnician (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Post-close note: SublimeWik has been indeffed for violating the harassment policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AWU, again

This is really escalating out of hand. I thought that this matter would be over after they were indefblocked for the most recent time. I have just compiled contributions for the past five years for AWU.

Their first account, Another Wiki User the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was created in 2020 and has 11 edits, all to user space, most revdeled, and then they abandoned their account. Account 2 Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created shortly after, also in 2020. Another Wiki User the Guest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked to match block on their main account. Account 3 Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created in 2021, also got blocked same reason. That account was recently unblocked and then it was reblocked. AWU did try an improper fresh start at FF25 YT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but got quickly blocked as a sock.

I would say this matter would be over, right now, but I just discovered Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 4th, created during the period account 3 was unblocked from enwiki on Meta-Wiki. While I was initially patient with this user, I am now convinced that there is going to be a much, much bigger headache for us in the future.

As I anticipate a game of infinite whack-a-mole, I would propose that Another Wiki User be formally banned from editing the English Wikipedia. Their inability to exercise self restraint, combined with both their sporadic editing over the past five years and unwarranted silliness, has demonstrated that they not only do not understand the reasons for the block, but that if not formally banned, they will just keep on creating new accounts and coming back. I thought it would be over once they were unblocked and then reblocked, but no. If they are not formally told that "hey you are no longer allowed to edit English Wikipedia", I think they will just continue. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Weak oppose. It's unlikely any admin is ever going to unblock AWU (unless they can show that they understand what it means to edit productively, in which case I don't see why a single admin shouldn't be allowed to unblock), they haven't edited since being reblocked, and AWU4 has never logged into en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they rise to the level of an LTA or editor who has caused massive damage to the project over years to be considered for a community ban. But that's my opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with you but I have found something a bit more. Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 1st Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 2nd Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 3rd. For 3 and 4, the accounts were created on Meta, 3 long before the disruptive behavior started and 4 while 3 was unblocked with the condition "no edits to project space".

I do think in this case it is looking more like a WP:CIR fail and actual naivety than any bad faith, but the result is the same. A user that thinks that Wikipedia is a game is going to bend the rules and whatnot to get their definition of "fun" rather than contribute meaningfully and seriously. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 01:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ryke001 (talk · contribs) was warned about inserting WP:UNDUE content at 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision without consensus per [172], [173] and [174]. After I reverted them for reinserting without consensus they proceed to do a hit and run on my TP [175] which they deleted while I explained everything and simultaneously edit-warring on the page again [176] and [177]. Borgenland (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that said user has a tendency to wipe off warnings on talk page, which although permitted, raises questions on WP:IDNHT given that they revert almost immediately. Borgenland (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

When this user finally did try to go to the talk page to seek consensus for their desire to mention Aeroméxico Flight 498, they twice removed opposing comments. Here and here. I warned them twice and I believe they stopped but it seems the undue content is not the only issue here. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

They wiped off a message on my talk page that I had replied to. Definitely WP:UNCIVIL. Borgenland (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Also appears to be edit warring at Five Nights at Freddy's 4. See [178]. Borgenland (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd from mainspace until they respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

And then they almost immediately removed the block notice. They know where to find us if they want to talk about their edit warring and other issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thesanas and Pooja Hegde

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Thesanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pooja Hegde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This starts back in November 2024 with User:Thesanas (account created that October) requesting GA review on Pooja Hegde. Total of 587 edits with 331 being to that page and an additional 29 to that talk page. Note that user is currently canvassing others and relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Pooja Hegde. Their edits were reverted by another editor on November 15 and they then started an edit war which I then got involved with here. More edit warring here, here, here, here, here (now into December 2024), here, here, here, here, here, and here. User was reported for edit warring which resulted in protection on the page, yet they went right back to it after the protection was reduced starting in February which includes edit warring here and here. Their edits are promotional and the majority of the time include unreliable sources and churnalism. They have been warned and told to use the talk page per WP:ONUS at least a dozen times yet still continue to bludgeon the consensus process. Would recommend a block as they are WP:NOTHERE, or in the very least a topic ban to stop the disruption. I am done editing the page so would also request someone who is not involved to review the page for promotional tone and sourcing.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've partial blocked Thesanas from editing the Pooja Hegde article. They are a single-purpose account insistent on adding promotion and puffery to the article. If the disruption spreads to other articles, the scope of the block can be revisited.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing disruptive editing, WP:3RR and WP:TE by previously blocked IP user: 31.164.184.21 / 194.38.172.194

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ongoing WP:TE, disruptive edits and edit warring by IP account.

Diffs (from the last hour or so): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... And there will probably be more before I finish writing this.

Warnings here, here, here, and here.

The user had a two-week block before for edit warring here. They previously expressed that an article on slavery in the Spanish Americas was "pro-British", while making personal attacks on another editor, and they have a pattern of making similar claims and removing or rewording material about Spain in relation to slavery. Consider these diffs, and the insertion of "as the rest of the population did". They have also complained (sometimes using a different IP and replying to support themselves) about a slave narrative being "literature", even though the discussions have not found consensus for that, and RSes treat the source as reliable. They are deleting the same source again.

I suspect this is a case of WP:NOTHERE, since they don't seem to want to follow policy or engage with other editors. Lewisguile (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: 31.164.184.21 has been blocked based on a notice at WP:AIV led me to see disruptive editing & a violation of WP:3RR. Since this editor was previously blocked for 2 weeks, I have blocked this editor for one month. Peaceray (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. I hadn't spotted that previously. Lewisguile (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

194.38.172.194 has been blocked in the past but is not currently blocked and they haven't edited in a few days. They geolocate to the same country as the other IP. I'd return if they pick up where 31.164.184.21 has left off. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Gandalfett edits on "Malaysians" keeps reverting my edits especially in the infobox title

Gandalfett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting my correct edits on "Malaysians" without stating any reason for reverting. In the info box title, it was originally written in both English & Malay word in both Rumi (Latin)"Orang Malaysia" & Jawi (Arabic) spelling "اورڠ مليسيا" , and then, I was going to supplemented/added it with other translations (in Chinese "马来西亚人/Măláixīyà rén" & Tamil "மலேசியர் Malēciyarkaḷ"). Second, in the "Languages" section of the infobox (originally displayed as: Malay & English), I supplemented/added it with Mandarin (alongside with Chinese dialects i.e Cantonese, Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew,etc.) & Indian languages (i.e Tamil, Punjabi, etc.), Third, there are other languages other than 3 originally displayed below as: Malayic•North Bornean•Melanau-Kajang•Aslian•Sama-Bajaw•Philippine, I was about add Murutic because its a language of the Tagal Murut & its sub-ethnics & Tidung people of the state of Sabah in East Malaysia, but THIS USER has been repeatedly reverting it to the following: "Orang Malaysia", "اورڠ مليسيا", "Malay, English", Malayic•North Bornean•Melanau-Kajang•Aslian•Sama-Bajaw•Philippine" without stating any reason. At the same time, I start a discussion on his talk page and remind him: "Hi, Gandalfett, I noticed that you reverted the edit without leaving any reason. The reason for that is Malaysian people consist not only Bumiputera (includes Malays, Orang Asli & Indigenous people's of Sabah & Sarawak), but CHINESE & INDIAN PEOPLE. You also removed the Mandarin, Indian Languages & Murutic in the infobox. To avoid continuation from edit war, Please refrain it (reverting) from doing so. But instead, please start a section on the talk page of the article, Thank you.", but what he/she did, he/she immediately never responded & erased my feedback/discussion. As I know that Malaysian people speaks not only Malay, but Chinese (i.e Mandarin & other Chinese varieties) and Indian languages (i.e Tamil, Punjabi, etc.), Malaysia is known for its diverse landscape, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural society. 49.149.103.174 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just checking, are you the same IP editor as Special:Diff/1273059394 and Special:Diff/1261227693? Because that summary reads like one of those "If you attack me you are (insert personal attacks)" comments on the internet. (Holy crap, this dates back to 2024!) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, this dispute seems to be half a year old. Yikes. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"Just checking, are you the same IP editor as Special:Diff/1273059394 and Special:Diff/1261227693? Because that summary reads like one of those "If you attack me you are (insert personal attacks)" comments on the internet. (Holy crap, this dates back to 2024!)" I WASN'T, THAT WAS FROM OTHER COMPUTERS (I've been in Internet cafe & my schools Wifi network) 49.149.103.174 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah,thanks for replying. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, 49.149.103.174,

I see that Gandalfett has unfortunately just erased your repeated messages on their user talk page instead of responding. But you still need to notify them about this post on ANI. The appropriate code is listed at the top of the page and displayed when you make an edit to this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What is ANI by the way? 49.149.103.174 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

...you're on it, and you posted your report about Gandalfett here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

49.149.103.174, I posted it on your behalf. But know that, in the future, you will have to take care of this yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

and also, keep on eye for his/her movements (Gandalfett) if he/she unleashes his/her stubborness by doing so (reverting it back again in the "Malaysians" section). I'm PISSED OFF with that guy & running out of patience! :-( 49.149.103.174 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've requested the full protection of the article, and it went through. This means the user in question cannot revert the article to their preferred version, and neither can me or you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic was started on the article talk page last year. Maybe you can join it and make your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

IP warned by me to stop WP:SHOUTING, because I had enough with trying to process all the bolded texts and caps lock comments. Talk:North Borneo dispute was the last straw for me. Replying on a 2008 topic to rename the article, just to... uhh, name-call politicians that oppose their views? I don't think that's appropriate... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to politely point out that there has been a misunderstanding. Gandalfett (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This has not been handled optimally. If an IP is forcing an edit through with various insults including one that was apparently redacted, locking the page to keep their edit in is a poor incentive structure. CMD (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It was presumably protected on The Wrong Version. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I had written a note about The Wrong Version, but deleted it as I didn't think it would be needed to point out civility issues. Clearly I was mistaken. CMD (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz for having another look. CMD (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Notifying of IP vandalism across a range of Formula One articles, from several similar IPs: 2601:201:8A80:45B0:21A3:ACA1:9ECD:F000, 2601:201:8A80:45B0:B456:9EEB:7B8C:EE80, 2603:8000:12F0:A60:89C8:90DF:36F5:E464. MB2437 20:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

While the first two IP addresses are similar, the third appears unrelated and has already been range blocked (2603:8000:12f0:a60::/64) by Ad Orientem. The IPs in the range (2601:201:8a80:45b0::/64) have also only made a total of 9 edits, one of which is to a user talk page replying to a warning, in the past day. Based on this, it doesn't seem like chronic, intractable behaviour or an urgent problem at the moment. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

User circumventing AfD

• Palakpatels952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilu Ilu (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Ilu Ilu was draftified on February 5, 2025 after the conclusion of a deletion discussion. User circumvented the results by moving it back to mainspace on the 10th. I moved it back to draft today. I asked user why and they stated they were unaware. However, now that they were made aware, they moved it back to mainspace as Ilu Ilu (2025 film). I don't want to edit war by moving it back. Would suggest protection on the page and moved back to draft based on the AfD outcome until the film is released and meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I closed the AFD that led to Draftification (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilu Ilu) and it was wrong to put this back into main space without going through AFC. But when I look at the AFD again, there were comments like this Draftify: until release.... in 2 weeks posted on January 29th and another editor also said to Draftify until release of this film. So, while this editor didn't handle this process correctly, I think the rough consensus is that this article would be acceptable in main space after the movie had been released. I definitely wouldn't edit war to keep moving it back to Draft space. If you are deadset, I'd start a second AFD rather than edit war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it will likely be notable once released and there are reviews. But, that is in no way a reason to circumvent AfD discussions. Otherwise, why have the discussion? It's a waste of time. I am not going to edit war which is why I am here. I would ask that an admin enforce the AfD finding. There is no need for a second AfD when the first just ended five days ago. The behavior by the user is indicative of the bludgeoning that takes place in that space which is frustrating. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear, the film has not yet released. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It is UPE behaviour. Please start a new Afd to get it deleted. It is promotional advertising and breaks the Terms of Use. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is now again here with new title Ilu Ilu (2025 film). Moved from draft space to the main space by the same user. GrabUp - Talk 12:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And moved back again. It needs to go through AFC because its notability is not obvious. Many of its "RS" are advertorials. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Really should eventually be at the original Ilu Ilu page title, not sure if Palakpatels952 is playing name games to see if people will "overlook" that it previously existed but there's no reason for a disambiguation there. Ravensfire (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with the "eventually." Just wish these paid sock farms would stop bludgeoning the process. Moving to a disambiguation is just another sign of their likely UPE.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Reporting User:Tewdar for inappropriate actions and Personal Harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting User:Tewdar for persistent harassment and inappropriate behavior:

Edit 1: Special:Diff/1274724838 - Followed me to multiple articles to revert my edits without discussion

Edit 2: Special:Diff/1274876797 - Followed me to multiple articles to revert my edits without discussion

I request administrator intervention to address this harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydigitalexperiment1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You have failed, as is pretty clearly written at the top of this page, to warn the user. I have done so for you. JayCubby 19:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

lol  Tewdar  19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mydigitalexperiment1, you've made questionable removals of huge swathes of sourced content in articles. Tewdar isn't the only editor who has reverted your edits. It is standard for an editor who has reverted a questionable edit to check the other editor's history to see if they're making similar edits on other articles; that is not harassment or inappropriate behavior. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently not a fan of black people - among other things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Floq, That could be construed as such, but I'd prefer MDE1's added image to the previous version because it depicts better the subject. Yes, it was there before, but the characterization of this user as a racist a stretch. JayCubby 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at their other reverts ... definitely a vibe. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, mind not my previous statement one bit, for the trend has now made itself manifest to yours truly. JayCubby 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:Boomerang for a maybe racist? Say it ain’t so. 2601:540:C700:130F:9683:C4FF:FE1D:7278 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

African admixture into Europe? Say it ain't so...  Tewdar  19:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Quite a lot of other things! Mind you , I do have a history of personal attacks or harassment, as my block log clearly demonstrates . Please , be merciful to me, AN/I...  Tewdar  19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned to be honest. Threads like this, where a request such as Will closing admin kindly block Wikipdeia moderator [[user:Tewdar|@Tewdar]] for personal actions and inappropriate harrasment ? rarely go well. Cheers. JayCubby 20:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, there might be socking involved, concerning Bursanton account. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Pansykon too?  Tewdar  20:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I opened up the sock drawer and Mydigitalexperiment1, Pansykon, Tesktron, Hurthston, Bursanton, Mydigitalexperiment7, Mydigitalexperiment6, Mydigitalexperiment5, Mydigitalexperiment4 and Mydigitalexperiment3 all fell out.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've also blocked Mydigitalexperiment2 who hasn't edited since 2022 but made the same type of edit. Hopefully this puts an end to their digital experiment.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

(Watchlisting User talk:Mydigitalexperiment8, on a wild hunch....Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC))

I reported the complainant for vandalism yesterday (?), but they just got given a crappy level 1 warning.  Tewdar  20:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

To quote The Bushranger, “socks, socks everywhere.” Seems like the biggest case of boomerang in a while. 2601:540:C700:130F:9683:C4FF:FE1D:7278 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Danny5784 continuing to be NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I started a previous ANI thread regarding Danny5784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having issues with notability, sourcing, and copyright. It resulted in a one-week block for socking, but didn't end up addressing the larger behavior issues. Those issues have continued since the block expired - in the last two weeks, he's created 36 user sandboxes about non-notable topics (bus garages and individual buses). None of these are remotely suitable to become articles; many are exact recreations of articles previously deleted for lack of notability. He seems to be using his user sandboxes as a personal wiki rather than actually drafting anything suitable for mainspace. Many of the sandboxes are also copyvios; compare User:Danny5784/New Jersey Transit Wayne Garage to the CPTDB wiki.

His unproductive editing is not limited to userspace - he's created two templates ({{accessible}} and {{WiFi}}) and Category:New Jersey Transit fleet apparently for his sandboxes. At this point, this is a NOTHERE/CIR issue - the few positive contributions he makes do not outweigh the degree of supervision that is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Lavalizard101, Voorts, Ponyo, The Bushranger, Liz, Stuartyeates, and JPxG: who all commented on the previous thread. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that Danny5784 created a sockpuppet account under the name of Toyota683 to try and sway the opinion on the ANI thread, which was later confirmed. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like someone raised the issue on Danny5784's user talk page, but there wasn't any mention of blocks, which would make an indefinite block kind of abrupt in my opinion. At the same time, creating a walled garden of Wikia-style content isn't really helpful. Has anyone even pointed Danny5784 toward alternative outlets? That might be something to try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC) edit: OK, I did so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I did suggest some alternate outlets back in January. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed as not here. They're clearly using Wikipedia as a web host for their NJ transit drafts (including on individual busses) and does not appear to be willing to change their behavior after being warned repeatedly. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vinnylospo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Report moved from WP:AIV). Vinnylospo is a long-standing editor and has a long-standing problem with adding unsourced material to articles. They have been blocked twice before for this and their talk page is filled with warnings from multiple editora that stretch back over nearly a decade. They are unwilling or unable to abide by WP:V and no amount of requests, warnings and blocks appear to make any difference. Today they went on a spree of adding Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump to hundreds of articles, the vast majority of which don't even mention Trump, let alone have the sources to justify this category. This is after receiving a final warning for adding unsourced material just over a week ago for this edit to David Lynch which is not just unsourced but actually contradicted by the sources in the article. Eight years after they were first warned about adding unsourced material to article they continue on, and will do until they are stopped. Opolito (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Editing restriction

Vinnylospo (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from directly (un)categorizing articles, appealable to the community in six months.

• Support as proposer. It seems like the bulk of Vinny's edits involve adding categories to articles. Routinely, those categories appear to be non-defining characteristics (such as adding Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump to random hotels Trump has stayed at) or without support in reliable sources (such as the David Lynch example). I hope that in six months (or longer), Vinny can make careful, sourced edits outside of categorization and use edit requests to propose the addition of sourced defining categories. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support thanks Voorts, that seems like a good approach. Opolito (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support clearly WP:NOTHERE. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Given the variety of the talk page warnings, this may not be quite enough, but I'm not familiar with the other behaviour. The unsourced categories, however, is clearly a recurring problem. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support This editor clearly lacks the competence and/or the willingness to categorize correctly. This is a chronic problem with Vinnylospo that goes back years. The notion that the fact that Trump spent one night in a hotel is a defining characteristic of that hotel is ludicrous. For amusement, read (or watch) George Washington Slept Here. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Instructions unclear. Categorized George Washington Slept Here under presidential travels of Donald Trump. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support I tried last fall, User_talk:Vinnylospo#Moratorium_on_category_creations, got empty platitudes, behavior continued. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

tamperging of pages about lists of coups

On the articles “list of coups and coup attempts by country”, “list of coups and coup attempts” and “list of coups and coup attempts since 2010”  a user by the name tgeorgescu (and possibly a few others) has been editing the articles to claim some some very recent political events are indeed coups, as well as some historical events, even tho there is nothing to corroborate these claims.

These include:

The 2019 Bolivian political crisis

The Romanian Revolution

The Abkhazian Revolution

Euromaidan

Claims by Serb Prime minister Vucic that there was a coup against him in 2024

Claims by Slovak Prime minister Fico of a coup against him

The 2024 Bangladesh Revolution

Coup allegations in Georgia

Accusations that the president of Romania is doing a self coup

All of these edits seem to be done for the purpose of a specific political agenda. I talked to Georgescu about his inclusion of Euromaidan, stating that it was a common argument of russian propagandists to paint it that way. he responded by claiming a revolution and coup are the same thing. I childishly responded by telling him to fuck off and that he was a tankie (disgraceful on my part). He kept repeating his claims in response.

A few days Before I learned of Georgescu’s edits, I noticed some vandalism of these articles, and then uprgraded the protection level for the last two articles I mentioned before. This has not worked. I contacted a user named Vrotsky who thanked me for an edit the other day, about the situation. He said the following:

"Hello, dear user. Yes, I've noticed the addition of controversial content to the various coup d'état wikilists - and it's much worse than it seems. These lists are recently receiving massive edits by IP users and sockpuppets. And it goes far beyond Euromaidan - they've added content about the Arab Spring revolutions, the 2000s-2010s 'Color Revolutions' and modern protests to the list. I'm one of the users who is trying to preserve the page's neutrality, but a lot of content was added in a short time. Well, there are several ways to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. In this case, you can use the WP:Coup argument or start a session on the article's talk page. If you suspect a user is making disruptive edits or vandalism, you can report them. A common behavior of this type of user is to reinsert deleted content without providing an explanation."

Another problematic user is Cobra Portugal, who is making the same sort of edits and only replies in Portugese when questioned about this.

I request that Georgescus and Cobra Portugals edits in general be reviewed, and for them to be banned. Sorry about the wall of text Bird244 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the user Vrotsky does not appear to exist. However you are required to properly notify tgeorgescu and Cobra Portugal if you raise them at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I found them - Vrostky - my apologies for the typo. Technically you are required to notify them too. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I notified all three. will georgescu and cobra portugal face sanctions for their actions? its clear what angle theyre going for with their edits. Bird244 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately not my responsibility to decide (I'm not an admin, just an experienced editor who watches several noticeboards) so I really cannot say if they will face sanctions. I will say I have worked with tgeorgescu on many articles in the past and calling them a vandal is unlikely to be a winning strategy. They're an experienced editor who generally does good work finding a neutral tone in articles about Eastern Europe. And your edit - which led to this dispute - was deleting a significant amount of sourced material, and not just in relationship to Ukraine. I would suggest you should definitely try collaborating with them rather than expecting they're going to pull a tban or a block for a few edits you didn't like. OTOH Cobra Portugal insisting on communicating in Portugese on en.wp is a bit more problematic. I would suggest they would do well to read WP:ENGAGE and, if they don't feel comfortable editing en.wp in English they should consider participating in the Portugese Wikipedia project instead. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I will say that [179] this is inappropriate language to use toward another Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

And please don't accuse people you disagree with of "absurd vandalism" without providing evidence. That is more likely to result in sanctions against you rather than them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

the evidence is in the edit history for all the pages I mentioned. Bird244 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

No. It's not. That's the problem. You came here and said that tgeorgescu was vandalizing these pages and then when we go and look what we see are them defending the inclusion of sourced statements and you deleting sourced material, insulting them, swearing at them and telling them to shut up. So, as it stands right now, no. They aren't the problem here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that calls for a 4im which has been delivered. I strongly suspect this whole thing is going to WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a mention: I did not say that a coup and a revolution are the same thing, just that they are not mutually exclusive. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Bird244, if you file a complaint at ANI or AN (or any noticeboard), you can't just point to an editor or an article and make accusations or it could BOOMERANG on you as a personal attack. You have to lay out an argument, presenting "diffs" or edits, illustrating the problems you see, citing policies and guidelines that have been violated. You can't expect the editors who visit ANI to go find the evidence to support your argument, that is your responsibility as the complaint filer.

Look at other cases on this noticeboard and see which have been resolved and which are still open and you'll see what is necessary for an admin to take action. The policy violations have to either be unambiguous and obvious (to other editors, not to you) or you have to lay out a detailed complaint so that others can see what you are arguing is true. And remember, making accusations without providing solid evidence can be seen as casting aspersion which can result in a sanction for you. This fact is one of the reasons we advise editors to try to reach an agreement on article talk pages rather than heading to ANI because the results here can be unpredictable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Sidebar: Ever since the whole DOGE/Musk purge and whatnot started, the article List of coups and coup attempts has been receiving a lot of attention. The article has been tagged since 2022 with This list has no precise inclusion criteria as described in the Manual of Style for standalone lists, which has been a point of debate recently with disputed content. I started a discussion on the talk page about the Inclusion criteria, which could use some extra eyes and opinions if anyone is interested in participating in the discussion. Kinda seems like the few of us participating are just talking over one another and getting nowhere on a consensus about the disputed content and the inclusion criteria. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, is this a formal RFC because that would bring more participants in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we should let the discussion I opened go a little bit longer before starting a RfC, but you may be right, a formal RfC might be what is needed. It's complicated in more ways than one. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue is that an RFC generally posits one question editors respond to. But a broader discussion can tackle many more aspects of a subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

i probably shouldve written it the same way you just did. also, i noticed some unusual edits made by IP accounts that were similar to ones made by people I mentioned earlier. Bird244 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse editors, especially editors who've been editing for more than 10 years, of having sockpuppets, you better have more evidence than just your suspicions or you could be guilty of making a personal attack. Given what you've just said, I think it is more likely that the IP was copying content than that an experienced editor was using a sockpuppet. The cost of sockpuppetry is high (automatic block) and the chances that an editor who has made tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of edits would create one just to make a random comment is extremely low. It has happened in the past but it's quite rare. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Fake nobility information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Eloise95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has inserted fake information about a specific person having some "nobility titles": many similar accounts (likely from that same person) have been blocked from the Spanish Wikipedia (see: [180]). The information inserted by these accounts is always regarding the same person, with his fake titles, or adding unsourced relationships to the Rothschild family. Thank you, James2813 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @James2813 Eloise95 has not been active here on enwiki since November 2024. And yeah, I find his edits here are problematic, as he has contributed in Spanish language[181][182]. NXcrypto Message 07:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  They've made 8 edits and, as stated, hasn't been active here for months. What is urgent about this situation that causes you to file a complaint at ANI? I think this can wait until and if the editor ever returns to editing on this Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake nobility information, and more

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The false information that was reported hours ago, has been again added by user Priscila96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears to be the same person, as he not only has tried to mantain the fake information regarding his nobility titles and relationships, but also has added unsourced and original content about supposed colaborations with David de Rothschild [183] [184]. Thank you, James2813 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

James2813, have you tried talking to the editor before heading straight to ANI? Also, this might be another account of an earlier editor that went by Eloise95. They aren't blocked so this wouldn't be block evasion but I was wondering if they seemed similar to you. But, first, I'd post a notice about Wikipedia policy first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I missed seeing that this report was related to your earlier report which makes my comment less than helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@James2813: if you believe someone is socking, please go to WP:SPI. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Any admin should act on these legal threats. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wasting our time by often making uncited changes without edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Guy Without Name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As far as I remember this is the first time I have started a discussion here as previously when I have asked for blocks it has been obvious vandalism. This is not obvious so hopefully this is the right place.

Perhaps if @Guy Without Name: was blocked for a while they might stop making changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&diff=1275019700&oldid=1274994037 which I just reverted.

They have been editing for a year now and I see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Without_Name that they have been warned many times already.

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Ukraine is described as a developing country three times (twice in text and on the first map) on the related page. You should discuss it on Talk:Ukraine. Orange sticker (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Orange sticker. It is problematic that the vast majority of Guy Without Name's edits do not include an edit summary, though. They have previously been warned about misleading edit summaries (February 2024) but I don't see any warnings for not using edit summaries so I have given them one. I do not see anything warranting a block at this time as Chidgk1 suggests though. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 14:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adam Black OK then let’s close this off and hope they take notice of your warning as it is not a big problem for me as we very rarely edit the same articles. Am I allowed to CLOSE THIS myself? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit DTTR, Chidgk1 has been discussing this and other issues there for at least a month. CMD (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that now. @Guy Without Name hasn't taken part though, and it seems common among mobile-only editors to not leave edit summaries or respond to talk page messages, is this a known UI problem? Orange sticker (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs for the latest on this. It still seems to be happening many years after it was flagged that the majority of people use phones now. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Thanks I did not know about these messaging problems on mobiles. However @Qflib already asked them last year to use edit summaries, so I thought what was the point of me asking too. From what @Guy Without Name has written on their talk page they are obviously a native English speaker and understand how to use the talk page. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis What does DTTR mean please? There is nothing political or personal about this because as far as I remember we have not interacted before. And they made the same change to Russia which someone else reverted thus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=next&oldid=1270864987

And I don’t think you can blame technology as about a quarter of their changes are commented, but sometimes misleadingly for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1997_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1274123370 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh scratch that last as I see now they just made a mistake rather than deliberately misleading Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Any time an editor gives you initials like that, you can usually add an "WP" to it and then see what WP:DTTR means. But it's Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I now understand @Guy Without Name was not cleverly vandalizing as I first suspected but is merely sloppy. They sometimes copy info from other Wikipedia articles without saying where they get the info from. So it looks like vandalism when the other article is wrong. So please could this complaint be closed. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PayamAvarwand

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

Severe WP:COMP / WP:IDHT issues at Ahvaz, failing to comply with this projects policies despite persistent attempts made in the talk page [185] [186], which even lead to attacks by PayamAvarwand (eg This is obvious that you are a narcissistic sick person), which in turn resulted in their block [187].

And now they have resumed their disruption at Ahvaz by removing sourced info [188] [189] [190], as well as making more personal attacks; I am spending my time, I'm not drinking beer and feel I'm the god of wikipedia. . The beer part is due to my userpage saying "This user drinks beer.", which this user apparently finds funny to mock, and which isn't the first time they have done that [191]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Can anybody explain me, what the problem is?

If you follow our today messages, you will see, I was trying to follow the Dl2000, and this -HistoryofIran interfere himself and magnifys my changes and tells me: "You understood nothing,"

I don't think that it's wrong to replace the old numbers with new ones or add an image! What is the problem?

update the information and clean it from junk information and data has nothing to do with sourced info.

He has humiliated me, some weeks ago, and I answered. That was all. PayamAvarwand (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems like there was productive discussion on Talk:Ahvaz a few months ago, why did that stop? I will say that the tone of those discussions was unfortunately, adversarial and fault-finding rather than collaborative.

I realize, HistoryofIran, that it must feel at times that you are repeating yourself over and over again. You have brought so many problematic editors to ANI/AN, you could get an end-of-the-year bonus. But I see PayamAvarwand as still a relatively inexperienced editor who could benefit from editing instruction provided in a educational way. Is that a possibility? I'd like to see if this relationship could be turned around and we could retain both editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And PayamAvarwand, stop insulting other editors. I can see you were frustrated but personal attacks can lead to a block just as fast as disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Sure thing, I can give it one more try. I'll give PayamAvarwand some instructions about their recent edits at Talk:Ahvaz. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Khaled29803 clearly WP:NOTTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Khaled29803 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTTHERE and all that they do is vandalize articles with Saudi nationalism. See Special:diff/1270059395, Special:diff/1270232135, Special:diff/1275382130 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef block. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An amicable resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I recognise that users like Tim riley and SchroCat (I consider them among my inspirations here) are experienced, it is somewhat disheartening not to have my suggestions acknowledged and to be ignored simply because some of my contributions to their articles (at PR and FAC) were deemed "pettifogging, nitpicking, unhelpful, and tiresome." I may be younger than most other users here, but being excluded from reaching out to them feels unfair. I harbour no ill will towards them; all I seek is for them to continue guiding me and to include me in their discussions. I hope for an amicable and fair resolution to this matter, as I believe I have done nothing wrong to warrant such treatment. MSincccc (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Tim riley has politely requested MSincccc to stop posting to his talk page. Since then, MSincccc has posted numerous times to TR's talk page demaning that TR engage with him. Some of these have been deleted from the page. Users have no right to force other users engage with them. This harassing behavior is very concerning, and this ANI posting seems very inappropriate to me. MSincccc needs to calm down and turn to other things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers Please do not misinterpret me. I only posted twice after being asked by Tim not to post on his talk page, and both were "requests." I asked him to inform me of his reason for barring me from approaching him in the future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Can you clarify precisely what urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems you want addressing? It might also profit you to read WP:BOOMERANG, depending on how soon you withdraw this notice. Having continued to post on Tim's talk page after being requested not to... and having promised not to do this last July.

Noting in passing that Catherine Middleton was 42 last June. The issue here is clearly over eagerness rather than malice, although whether the result of either differ is up to the community, of course. Serial (speculates here) 18:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers and @Serial Number 54129 This is unrelated to the recent conversation. I recognise that users have the right to decide whether to engage with another user. I will not post on either of their talk pages in the future unless absolutely necessary.

However, this pertains to how the two users mentioned have repeatedly undermined my contributions. I have no intention of harassing anyone, nor do I hold any ill feelings towards anyone. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

how the two users mentioned have repeatedly undermined my contributions Could you provide diffs for when that has happened? Schazjmd (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Take this discussion for instance: Wikipedia:Peer review/For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)/archive1

• Only my last comment might have not suggested an improvement. The rest of them were implemented in the article and yet I was not acknowledged.

Furthermore, this was what Tim wrote:

I cannot say how irritating I find these pettifogging, nitpicking, unhelpful, tiresome interventions from this editor are. I do wish he would find something better to do with his time in between school lessons. Tim riley MSincccc (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

”The rest of them were implemented in the article”: that’s just not true. If you come to ANI you need to be truthful with your evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat Except for the one which I have striked out and the one which I did not insist upon. MSincccc (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. False again. And please stop pinging me.

And you’ve decided to open an ANI case against me because I didn’t “acknowledge” a review? Give me strength... Can this be closed off with prejudice for wasting people’s time? There’s nothing to report and no action needed, except that MSincccc needs to stop pestering people and to understand that when people say ‘stop’ or ‘no’, they need to take that on board and not keep annoying them further. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, MSincccc. You mischaracterize that PR discussion. Your comments were mostly style comments which were NOT consistent with the MOS, for example MOS:VAR or MOS:ENGVAR. Most of your comments were not accepted. Moreover, there SchroCat requested that you stop pinging him, yet you continued to do so. (BTW, please stop pinging me here. I am watching the discussion.) You also demanded that he respond to your suggestions and renewed your demand only a couple of hours after you made the suggestion. Wikipedia discussions customarily give people a week to respond, and not everything needs a response. If your comment is deemed useful it will be implemented. If you are having some kind of meltdown, I would suggest that you take a wikibreak. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2. It is unclear what you want to happen as a result of this post. Wikipedia only deals with sins of commission, not with sins of omission. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This filing needs closing and MSincccc needs to be told to back off. Their behaviour towards User:Tim riley, and towards User:SchroCat, has crossed the line into harassment and that is the only chronic, intractable behavioural problem we have here. MSincccc - you cannot compel other editors to engage with you, through ANI or through any other means. When they have made it abundantly clear that they don't want to, you need to step back. Not doing so constitutes disruptive editing and that will likely have consequences. KJP1 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User who keeps making disruptive edits after the controversials

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user keeps making disruptive edits with me, such as Short n' Sweet, 333, "Lost Your Faith" articles and also Sockpuppet, which was not true, after I had a beef with his best friend @1, @2.

Please check this distruptive user, thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus

• Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White Mexicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others...

Pob3qu3 has been disruptively editing articles related to White Mexicans for several months, and other related pages attempting to insert a fact about the percentage of "White Mexicans" into these articles. The current problem is that they are performing OR/SYNTH and using WP:CALC improperly, but moreover fail to acknowledge the consensus against them regardless of the venue, and exhibit WP:BIT and WP:IDHT often falsely claim that we agree with them.

• December 26, Remsense (talk · contribs) reverted (diff) and they began a talk page discussion with this user[192].
• December 27, I (Tiggerjay (talk · contribs)) first became aware of this user and reverted their reintroduction of this information (which had previously been reverted several times but never 3R).diff and placed a notice on their talk page about edit warring.[193] -- that began a 24-comment talk page section about CALC & SYNTH issues.
• December 29, Netitas06 (talk · contribs) raised concerns over at Talk:White_Mexicans which includes 65 comments
• During most of January, they avoided this specific topic and edited more generally
• January 28 Grayfell (talk · contribs) posted a notice over at WP:NORN [194] where the wall-of-text currently sits at 83 comments
• February 11, they are still reading the same contested information [195]

What makes this difficult is Pob3qu3 filibustering style of communication which turns even the most basic conversation into a wall-of-text, rehasing the same positions over and over again. They also provide citations in edits and talk discussions, but the source of the problem is that the citation does not say what they claim that it does.

It should be noted that during this attempt at AGF discussions, Pob3qu3 filed a dubious SPI report about several of us [196] which was promptly rejected for what it was looks like opening a SPI to win a content dispute to me. This is the third time they've used SPI as a cats paw for in edit disputes [197] [198] TiggerJay (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Given this enormous discussion at NORN which you just asked to be closed two hours ago, Tiggerjay this looks a little bit like forum shopping although that discussion was focused on the article and this one seems focused on the editor. I'm sure it will very much be a similar discussion though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, closure was actually requested back on Feb 7th and then asked again earlier as you mentioned. However as you stated this is more about behavior. Continuing to edit while NORN is ongoing, hijacking’s conversations on other users talk pages, falsely claiming consensus is in their favor, and then a dubious SPI filing … is reflective of their longstanding poor behavior. TiggerJay (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I will have a look—see my question at Talk:Mexico#Contentious. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that this reads like forum shopping, specially when I've proposed to take the issue to third opinion or similar venues before as can be seen here [199] instead, Tiggerjay and others have been threatening with getting me sanctioned which doesn't feel right. Tiggerjay's main talking point is that "there are other editors that disagree with me" but as far as I know, Wikipedia is not about votes, is about sources and following policy. Tiggerjay also says that "the source of the problem is that the citation does not say what they claim that it does." but lets check the source, which is the entry of Mexico's ethnic groups on Encyclopedia Brittanica[200]: "Mexico’s population is composed of many ethnic groups, including indigenous American Indians (Amerindians), who account for less than one-tenth of the total. Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population." we also see that there's one pie chart in there that closely resembles what the entry says, specially it says that "other" amount for 31%, and Brittanica says Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population. so I don't see how its an issue to say that White Mexicans are about 31%-32% or "one-third" or why Tiggerjay, Grayfell and others claim "that the source does not say that" specially when Grayfell changed himself the figure of 32% on the article of White Mexicans to say "one-third"[201] around one week ago and Moxy wrote on this diff[202] that "People of European descent (“whites”) and.other imagrate groups make up approximately thirty percent of the population" as a proposal to write the source to the article (he later started claiming that "the source does not say that" too), as can be seen, they've previously acknowledged that the source does indeed say at least 30% so am I on the wrong for wanting to keep it on the pertinent articles?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that at ANI we look at editor behavior so please focus on those points and not the content dispute. We're not going to rehash the discussion at NORN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. I just thought that it would be better for my defense to fully cite the source right here as its interpretation is central to the conflict, as can be seen hours ago Grayfell reverted me claiming that "Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't say that"[203] but there are diffs on which Grayfell himself acknowledges that Brittanica does indeed say that White Mexicans are around "one-third" or 32% or 31%[204] which sums up the last week of conflict. This is also related to Tiggerjay writting on his report that I'm "falsely claiming that they all have agreed with me" which I assume aludes to diffs I've presented on which editors such as Grayfell acknowledge the Brittanica's figures so its not true that I'm making any false claims when I say they have acknowledged those figures before as the diffs are right there. Pob3qu3 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

That diff is not a 'gotcha', it's not coordinated conspiracy as the SPI implied, it's just editing. I changed the wording to avoid false precision and then later realized the source doesn't support the attached claim.

There is no smoking gun here. Multiple editors have tried to explain the deeper issue (mostly about OR). Pob3qu3 has ignored us, or tried to make it about a specific content issue, or misinterpreted what we've said. The end result is filibustering. The NORN post was my misguided attempt to break this cycle. Looking at various talk pages, this has been going on a while. It looks like Pob3qu3 only edits this topic area, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell The NORN dispute wasn't even about Brittanica originally, that issue was brought later on and is when the discussion started to spread out, you say that you've realised that "the source didn't say that and decided to fix it" but you aren't the only one here that acknowledged its content, Moxy acknowledged at least "Thirty percent" too[205] and this was after the conflict about the inclusion of Brittanica have already started (Moxy made those comments on February 3 and you first removed the 32%/one-third figure on February 2[206]), which means that he reviewed the source carefully. In fact what Moxy wrote was his proposal of how to summarize the Brittanica source so it could be introduced to the article, we discussed a little about it[207], I agreed with Moxy in general, but I wanted "thirthy one" like the pie chart says, not thirty, he also wanted to include Asian immigrants in the 30% to which I pointed out that Brittanca makes clear that the "other" group is composed of Significantly White Mexicans but then he never touched that proposal again (this was his last reply in the matter[208]). I don't think it can be said that Moxy misinterpreted the source because like you currently claim you did. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, Pob3qu3 has ignored us, or tried to make it about a specific content issue, or misinterpreted what we've said. This is another example of that. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I just almost textually cited another editor, I don't think I'm misinterpreting him. I also proposed that you restored the Brittanica source on the article of Mexico[209] the way you rephrased it yourself on the article European Emigration[210] so I honestly don't see how I'm ignoring you, I just don't want highly reliable sources to be removed from the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Is English your first language cuz you seem to misrepresent what people keep saying? Moxy🍁 22:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have no idea how this process works, but reporting user "Bridget" for edit war. A well sourced statement has been added to the Li-Meng Yan article but she keeps removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify the person about this discussion. I have done so for you. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also the person who broke the WP:3RR brightline was you Ecgberht1 - not Bridget - so you are the one edit warring. To insert a non-WP:MEDRS into an article about COVID [211]. Multiple other editors have reverted you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, nobody broke 3RR on Li-Meng Yan, but Ecgbehrt is at three reverts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, you seem to be on Li-Meng Yan a lot. And you're claiming that her theory that COVID-19 escaped from a lab in Wuhan is correct. The well sourced statement has sources that actually contradict what you are trying to say:

[212] The agency made its new assessment with “low confidence,” which means the intelligence behind it is fragmentary and incomplete.

[213] Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the best solution here might be a page block for Ecgberht1 from editing Li-Meng Yan. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions I think an outright WP:NOTHERE block is more appropriate. They're here to right great wrongs and spread disinformation as can be seen throughout their edits, and they get argumentative when challenged and put it all down to political bias. Canterbury Tail talk 16:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would not oppose if people agree it's that severe. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wp:boomerang 66.206.125.114 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ecgberht1, don’t revert again, as you then will break the WP:3RR rule. There is a contentious topics editnotice on that article visible when you edit it, and now a contentious topic notice on your user page. Please review them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Continuing to ignore consensus when editing a page can result in sanctions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding information about the subject individual and supporting it with valid references is not "contentious" unless it bumps up against zealots who don't care for the truth. Do whatever the f you want. Wiki is lost. And you people are lost. Read the "incidents". They all float one way. Like "vandalism from a cult member"? Seriously?

I won't be back here. Ecgberht1 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that after making this comment, Ecgberht1 did actually "be back" - reverting yet again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring and ignoring my warning about consensus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ravenswing's Fifth Law: "The nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is lose gracefully and move on. Those who do not tend to wind up at ANI." You wouldn't be the first ten thousandth person to declare that Wikipedia is doomed on the sole basis of you not getting your way in a content dispute, but it's happened to all of us many times over. Ravenswing 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Given their comments on their talk page following the block, I've extended the block to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kansascitt1225

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansascitt1225/Archive

User User:Kansascitt1225 was recently unblocked after years of requests. This has caught myself and other long time editors by surprise, as this is a long term abuse account (7 years now), hyper-focused on the Kansas City Metro Area. Their edits throughout the years have been extremely disruptive and time consuming to a number of editors and administrators. Their edits center around Johnson County, Kansas and its relation to Kansas City, Missouri. They can be quite subtle and I ask that you comprehensively familiarize yourself with the KC topic area and this user's history. Kansascitt1225 is extremely good at gaming the system and appearing to act in good faith. here are the sockpuppetry cases that accumulated throughout the years. I should emphasize that sockpupptry is not the central problem, the problem is their unique crusade to right their perceived wrong on the Kansas City topic area; this has remained consistent for 7 years. The introduction of sometimes quite subtle POV/Biased information by cherry-picking statistics on density/crime, basically anything to make Johnson County, Kansas look favorable in comparison to Kansas City is disruptive. Especially because some of it looks (is even?) quite credible, unless you are familiar with this users long history. I do not believe due diligence was done by the unblocking, at the very least a topic-ban should have been required. We are basically right back where we were a few years ago as evidenced by these diffs, [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220] please compare these to the information complied in the sockpuppetry cases and the deleted information on Kansascitt1224 talk page. I want to stress that in the last few years Kansascitt1225 has learned how to appear contrite and in good faith, but we are dealing with the exact same problematic material being introduced as the previous 7 years. The past is the best indicator of the future and there is not reason to think this will not becoming increasingly disruptive if allowed to continue. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important not to relitigate past editing mistakes and just focus on any problems that exist since the unblock request was approved. So, you're claiming the policy violation is POV pushing, that's what the current problem is? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The diffs above are all current, but won't make much sense without the historical context. Essentially it is POV pushing, albeit I think a POV unique to this individual, things like overemphasizing crime in KC, awkward insertions of "car-dependent" as an adjective in KC articles, inappropriate comparison of density, insistence on removing suburban from articles about Johnson County (despite municipalities like Overland Park literally describing themselves as suburbs of KC in their internal city planning documents). I should emphasize this is not a content dispute so much, but long term effort by this user to essential spread bad things about KC, and good things about their home suburb, for whatever reason. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all of the edits are WP:SEALION WP:SPA. And they're all over extremely extraordinarily complicated and intricate subject matter, which would require the equivalent of a specialized degree to discuss and cite. Basically like WP:MED or WP:MILHIST or WP:BLP. Most intensely interested people are barely qualified to even discuss extremely complicated history, urban development, census, and sociology; and they're maybe qualified to identify and revert this abuse according to Wikipedia policy.

This is a person who sits at Dunkin Donuts to propagandize the WP:OR that the census population of every city fluctuates daily by the existence of commuting to work and back. After years of specific lectures, this is an untrainable person who in the last couple days still claims an WP:RS is maybe an opinion, and does NOT know how to sign a post.[221] Just re-cited an extreme right-wing propaganda group that I only know of due to his spamming it.[222] Just posted a wall of text including his own warning template that one of the sources was unreliable. I can't even bring myself to find that. — Smuckola(talk) 23:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the worst LTAs I've ever seen in my research of the SPI archives of legendary LTAs. I adamantly propose a site ban. @Yamla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansascitt1225/Archive

To vigorously agree with my most esteemed and embattled colleague Grey Wanderer above, the other best indicator of the future is the *present*! The LTA immediately repeated the identical abuse. All of this abuser's unblock requests are actually just blatant demands that were nakedly couched in years of brutal weaponized civility (WP:SEALION) and weaponized incompetence (WP:CIR). The last unblock demand is virtually identical to every other unblock demand, which were all categorically rejected as mindlessly abusive demands. Countless admins told him for years that he's community banned and that something inexplicably even worse will happen if he doesn't stop all requests and edits for X time period, but all he heard was "so you're telling me there's a chance".

He simply kept WP:GAMEing the system with endless unblock demands forever until he accidentally found a different set of admins who knew nothing of the case. That unblock demand was simply his patented topic rant about righting great wrongs, plus the innovation of "but I'm not trying to right great wrongs". It is identical to all other unblock requests that had been correctly denied as categorical abuse. However, from these people, the only stated and effective criterion was that he had already "waited" one year with allegedly no editing on the wikipedia.org website, plus a one sentence blurb about believing in unexplained, unprovisioned, magical, spontaneous, self-rehabilitation of an extreme LTA. They did not notify anybody previously involved in this mile-long SPI archive, not even a blocking admin. They did not link to, mention, or consider, that SPI archive. They mischaracterized his magical rehab duration as being six years, which is actually the entire period of abuse. The years of unanimous consensus was handwaved away as being inexplicably nonexistent. The thread was conducted effectively in secret from all of us and handwaved through. That brand of WP:AGF is called toxic positivity. That's not assuming good faith, but wishfully projecting good faith. And I know they do it in good faith. :)

And that culture is why we endured six years of this abuse. And if it wasn't him, it'd be another one.

They thought a person who had already elevated this to personal WP:HOUNDING of anybody who disagreed, and who had posted a Wikipedia comment detailing his daily plan of traversing the metro between each public wifi network for the express purpose of block evasion with sockpuppets while saying he DID NOT KNOW that any of this behavior was in any way wrong, was miraculously healed while repeating the identical abuse. Just because he did the abuse this time without a sockpuppet or block evasion.

Just look at the SPI archive. Grey Wanderer and I lost zillions of hours of our lives, our peace, and our sanity, to exhaustively cataloging and chronicling this abuse. Just for hope. This has broken us. Consider the human suffering and pain, instead of building an encyclopedia or doing anything else. All dismissed as a minor misunderstanding and inconvenience.

When unblocked, he immediately just resumed exactly the same abuse, performing automatic reverts of us reverting him. He still has absolutely no concept or concern of what constitutes a WP:RS, and citations including nothing at all or including an extreme right-wing propaganda think tank or anything else that's tinder thrown on the bonfire of his single-purpose propaganda. He talks and acts like an WP:RS is just some kind of opinion, but it's actually just whatever doesn't get reverted. Any action or inaction simply must be in service of this WP:ROBOTIC WP:SPA agenda.

What had he spent that year doing? Getting blocked on reddit for zillions of sockpuppets spamming zillions of these identical rants on zillions of subreddits, to try to recruit people to brigade Wikipedia for this one topic. All of it is weaponized helpless incompetence and sealioning, as if to say "but I *simply* want to ask *one* question ten miles long for the millionth time" and "but I *simply* don't understand". I know at least one of those reddit mods. Countless redditors in countless subreddits (all dedicated to these topics of KC and of urban planning), said all the same things as us here. Many of the replies were simply to ask him why on earth he had just spammed an identical post on countless subreddits, again and again and again. Then repeat *that*. Even the few who agreed with some points advised him to back off. That's just one website; I have no idea how many others he might have brigaded.

If ya can't tell, yeah there's a concern about posting specifics, so I guess maybe I could look that stuff up privately if I had to, but that would be beyond the already beyond-the-pale. (edit: I found a screenshot of the wiki-brigading reddit post, in which he claimed that this SPI case had "no answers". NO ANSWERS. No explanation from anybody in six years of LTA, never, not one, just blocked for no reason with no explanation. He's talking about the SPI archive page which he relentlessly and directly attacked and was reverted on for years. But that reddit sockpuppet was deleted with countless others, leaving apparently no online record.)

This week, I reported this to WMF's Trust & Safety. The response was vigorous agreement and encouragement for this ANI post but while claiming no authority for this category of abuse. Yet. — Smuckola(talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a mention of a Kansas-related topic ban in the ban appeal discussion. I think immediately resuming the same areas of conflict from before merits that much at least. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Yes thank you, but that was simply a desperate suggestion which could not be the minimum. — Smuckola(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if dealing with this editor has caused you stress over the years. But for admins who patrol this board and who didn't live through this odyssey, we need to see diffs of conduct you believe is unacceptable. Or, if there is an admin who is familiar with this editor from past encounters, please ping them to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: We did all that, immediately at first, in this thread. I issued a ping @Yamla: (the admin who had said this LTA is under "community ban" when denying the spam of unblock demands) and Grey Wanderer posted a flood of current, post-unblock diffs! And he linked to the SPI archive which, as I said, we already exhaustively curated for exactly this reason. Or just see the current page of the LTA's edit history. I am quite heartened to see Liz in on this, because I have always seen that your still waters run deep, and this is the test. Thank you so much for your kind and patient attention. :( :( :( :( — Smuckola(talk) 00:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is very kind of you. I don't have a reputation of acting quickly but I do like to see complaints on ANI to move along and not get stuck in limbo land. However, I do always like to hear from the editor whose activity is being scrutinized and they haven't been active for a few days. But comments from them about a dispute often can quickly reveal whether or not they "get" what the problem is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, DoubleGrazing, and Yamla: Yes you have always been patient and kind but also technically fair, that I have seen, which is a rare gift in life. Ok I just posted another comment evaluating his comment here today as being more of the same abuse. Have you learned to love it yet? Are we all sorry for being wrong yet?

My questions to you as an admin is, was his latest unblocking conducted in a valid way? Did they follow procedure by notifying 0 past participants, providing 0 links to the SPI archive, discussing and factoring 0 past offenses, categorically rejecting 100% of all past evidence, and rubberstamping it based solely on the unverified allegation of having done no Wikipedia abuse for 1 year? With no followup involvement or responsibility whatsoever. All that actually meant is that Grey Wanderer and I, the LTA's unwitting and un-notified slaves, haven't done all the work to file a new set of offenses on Wikipedia yet and they don't care what he did elsewhere.

They blasted him through the chute as simply somebody else's problem. In normal life outside of Wikipedia, this is what people call a kangaroo court or a "boys' club". As an American, I know what the pardon process is worth.

Does it matter to Wikipedia policy (such as WP:SO) that he actually spent that last year getting himself blocked on different websites for all the same offenses? Including attempted brigading of Wikipedia, in which he lied to redditors that no Wikipedia admin had ever explained any offenses or reasons for blocking? Again, I personally know one of those blocking moderators on Reddit, so ask me privately if you want. There are tools to access deleted reddit content, because all his accounts were mowed down. — Smuckola(talk) 18:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smuckola: this is way out of line, and I'd ask that you strike these aspersions. First, there is no policy that requires anyone to notify editors who have been involved in past unblock requests about future ones. Given that you were apparently so deeply concerned about the prospect of Kansascitt potentially returning to en-wiki, you should have watched his talk page for future unblock requests. Second, there is a link to the SPI archives in the thread you linked to above. Third, I did review all of the past behavior and I was persuaded by this unblock request. It's bizarre that you'd think several admins consider a banned sockmaster to be part of an old boys club with them. Fourth, are you suggesting that everyone voting in unblock requests is now required to troll /r/wikipedia just to make sure that nobody is being disruptive there? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi user:Liz and user:Schazjmd. I’ll try to explain myself, my past edits and what my interests are here on Wikipedia along with my past issues in dealing with civility and multiple accounts. I will also show my viewpoint in dealing with these editors and my disruptive past, most of which was simply block evasion and using multiple accounts along with ip addresses to evade my past block which hasn’t happened in over a year. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Kansascitt1225, I look forward to seeing your explanation and your response to these comments about your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi user:Liz and user:Schazjmd I’ll just address the concerns in each paragraph above. I list them below by paragraph because there is a lot on there.

The first paragraph states that “Their edits throughout the years have been extremely disruptive and time consuming to a number of editors and administrators”. Yes I fully admit they have been as this was a behavioral issue and I was younger then also. Bypassing my block and using multiple accounts was a very disruptive thing to do an I already apologized to these editors for wasting their time.

It was also quoted that “Kansascitt1225 is extremely good at gaming the system and appearing to act in good faith”. This is because I am acting in good faith other than that, I was simply jumping IP addresses and bypassing my block with new accounts.

It was also quoted that “ the problem is their unique crusade to right their perceived wrong on the Kansas City topic area; this has remained consistent for 7 years. The introduction of sometimes quite subtle POV/Biased information by cherry-picking statistics on density/crime, basically anything to make Johnson County, Kansas look favorable in comparison to Kansas City is disruptive. Especially because some of it looks (is even?) quite credible, unless you are familiar with this users long history “. I’m not trying to right any wrong, I am just simply trying to make the pages more up to date and more accurate. You can easily google Kansas City urban decay, redlining or white flight or crime to verify the past quickly which is why it’s credible. There are many before and after images of how the city of kcmo has deteriorated and become basically completely car dependent. I’m not cherry picking and trying to present thing more neutrally than I did 7 years ago. I have learned about looking at biases in references and how to present them better. I never said Johnson county was “better” than KCMO. It simply has more jobs, a higher income, higher overall density than surrounding counties, and much less crime than kcmo; basically regardless of how you present the information. To them I guess it seems as though I’m trying to “promote” Johnson county and they are angry that I was unblocked because all the reverting they had to do when I was bypassing my block.

I am being accused of “sea lion”. When I was editing from the IP addresses back when I was blocked, I would say “same person here” because I thought if I made better edits I could get unblocked which was a terrible idea. I said “same person here” so people knew I was the same person and was later just slapped with it being a sea lion confession. I am also getting labeled as having a right winged agenda which seems uncivil to me especially since I’m not even right or left winged and don’t associate with a party.

The other user quoted. “This is a person who sits at Dunkin Donuts to propagandize the WP:OR that the census population of every city fluctuates daily by the existence of commuting to work and back” which I wrote on the Overland Park, Kansas page.

Clearly this user is uneducated on the topic. It’s called commuter adjusted population. It’s how many people are in a city during the working day. This user gets offended by this and says it’s wrong for some reason.

As far as the rest. I was mostly upset because I got blocked on here and went to Reddit to ask questions and post demographics, Census and economic things. I want to work collaboratively with people on here and already apologized for incivility on here and quit Reddit. The first user on here was upset with me and I felt as though he assumed bad faith since the beginning when he removed the fact of urban decay in Kansas City as can be seen here [223].

Sorry I’ve caused disruption in the past but just want to see how we can move forward. I also learned about proper copyrighting and that you can’t use any picture. I agree to follow Wikipedia policies and think most my edit summaries on the KC area articles have been well referenced since I’ve been unblocked. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I must say this comes across as a rather unconvincing account of what happened and why ("sorry not sorry" is an expression I hear young 'uns use, which might apply here?). Putting that aside, on one hand we have real or alleged POV-pushing in a clearly-delineated topic area; on the other, an editor who claims to have seen the error of their ways and is wanting to demonstrate better editing behaviour going forward, which assurances the community have accepted. Wouldn't TBAN on KC-related topics therefore be the obvious way to reconcile this, at least until such time as this promised better editing has been demonstrated in practice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, Yamla, and Liz: Well done. Yes, it's "I'm sorry that you're all totally wrong for disagreeing with me for absolutely no reason (because there couldn't possibly be one), but most of all I'm super sorry for having been caught. So anyway, get on my level. Here's your coursework again." WP:SEALION WP:GAME WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:NOTHERE WP:CIR

Except no, instantly violating the premise of wrongfully unblocking an LTA does not result in remaining unblocked. A mere topic ban would be complicit, implying that the previous block was wrong, that the wrongful unblocking was right, and that the current repeat block defiance on the articles and in this ANI thread are ok. Anyway, if it did, then no a topic ban does not apply only to Kansas City. The topic is demographics, and he also instantly pumped the same topic in many localities. WP:SPA WP:TENDENTIOUS

Every single message, including unblock requests, has been a relitigation of a POV-pushing topic rant, including right now to your face. All of us fools have been schooled and served once again. ANI just became a fake lecture hall because he was invited here. The only thing he's learned (through pure power, aka blocking, and only for YEARS) is to save the "so anyways why are YOU so mean to ME for disagreeing?" part until later, while talking you to death (arf! arf! arf!) forever on a specific talk page. Just kidding, it's actually down below in this thread where he addresses sounding defensive. He said basically "Yeah I was defensive just now. So you say you want defensive. Oh I'll SHOW you defensive. You're all so mean to me, and WP:SO says I'm innocent. Just like a pardon changes 'guilty' to 'innocent', this is not the zillionth chance but only the second one."

How many ANI threads need their own References section? It's as if "I won't ever push my POV on those articles without approval. So, I'm forced to do it here on ANI; my class is in session; you're welcome, students!"

You see the relitigation of the sealion hedging here: "The first user on here was upset with me and I felt as though he assumed bad faith since the beginning when he removed the fact of urban decay in Kansas City as can be seen here [163]". He lets you assume this is an apology, but it's actually a passive-aggressive broken record. He's so very sorry that everyone else is wrong. The sealion is the cutest predator ever, only yummy fish ever see those fangs! Why did you need to be so yummy?

He didn't learn anything through magical rehab; he only memorized one single consequence of having been blocked, and never should have been unblocked.

The same POV and POV-pushing will exist in any other such topic too. His only area of interest (WP:SPA) whatsoever is actually unfathomably complex, which some university professors could get wrong. But he thinks he's God's gift to sociology, history, and demographic research with an honorary self-made PhD in riding around town. The rest of us have the sense to stay in our lane, or find a qualified expert. The closest I tend to do is occasionally formatting existing census citations.

Recidivists gonna recidivate. WP:CIR. Wikipedia's magically wishful toxic positivity does not work. Site ban. — Smuckola(talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Smuckola yea I did learn something. I learned how to conduct my behavior better and not to bypass my block especially during a disagreement. I learned that if I have a disagreement, which does happen I can use the talk page, and work collaboratively. I was even thinking of going to the NPOV notice board with this a couple days ago to get an outsider perspective on the edits since my unlocking. (The edits before were my unblocking were unacceptable yes). You seem to have a personal grudge against me honestly and I feel like you’re making it sound like I’m trying to utterly destroy Wikipedia and belong in prison or something. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla, Liz, and DoubleGrazing: Admins, my informed and consulted understanding is that this above comment explicitly violates WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF exactly as always before. This brand of WP:SEALION is called DARVO ("deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender").

In this way, he

1) violates universally established consensus

2) creates (maintains) his hostile environment

3) ignores and defies established processes

It defies respect for community and contradicts all his trained lip service thereof. This above offense stands alone, it stands upon the mountain of violations of this ANI thread, and it trounces the galaxy of violations in the six year SPI archive.

One of the many pillars of his past block is that he constantly insists that every disagreement is wrong (or can't be understood, or simply doesn't exist) and that he has assumed bad faith of those people. This above paragraph alone is one of many statements in this very ANI thread that repeats the past block offenses, and is why he should never have been unblocked.

It continues the WP:SEALION lip service and gaslighting projection of a standard domestic abuse tactic called DARVO ("deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender"). He effectively says "But I was just about to perform the bare minimum of civil conduct that I always knew is right! If only you hadn't suddenly interrupted and discouraged me." After he had already filled the same articles with walls of the same repeat offense against the unblocking admins' warnings. That's DARVO, blaming the victim and reversing it to seem like he's the victim.

Other, far less severe, chronic abusers have had admins require them to propose sample content and reactions to sample scenarios, on their own Talk page, as a condition for considering unblocking them. They didn't get the automatic unblock that he got. Here we have him failing it all within ANI, after he already did it immediately post-unblock, and without him even being asked. Again, even a topic ban would be complicit. Site ban. — Smuckola(talk) 21:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I won’t edit the topic until a decision has been made. I am genuinely sorry for the past disruption tho. Additionally I just wanted to point out that on the Economy of Kansas City page I found another reference that says the GDP is split almost evenly between the 2 states. The first one says it in the article which sites the second one, from bookings and shows that 51.2% of the economic output (GDP) is in Missouri while 48.8% is in Kansas. I understand my past poor behavior but genuinely don’t understand what the issue is with this edit tho. This brookings study has about the same results as the “right winged biased one” on the GDP numbers. I tried presenting that neutrally saying that the economy was split fairly evenly between MO and KS. Please show me where I went wrong here Kansascitt1225 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Hi user:DoubleGrazing yeah after I read that it sounds a little bit defensive, which it kind of is. I’m sure to other people it was more sock puppetry for deception than it was to me because they couldn’t tell I was the same person. Most of those were so blatantly obviously the same person because I would edit with a new account like 10 minutes later the exact same thing. Most of them were just to bypass my block years ago.

I know I’ve been VERY disruptive in the past It’s just frustrating being told you are acting in bad faith over and over after getting unblocked. I thought I would get a second chance and never felt like I really did after my initial block. I apologized on my talk page and to each of these editors personally. I promised on my unblock page that I would only use 1 account this time and work collaboratively with others Kansascitt1225 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sanctions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support Topic ban from the topics of Kansas and Missouri, broadly defined - Kansascitt1225: you were given a chance, and you've blown it very quickly with this POVpushing/right-great-wrongs behaviour (something I and others explicitly warned you against in the unblock discussion). Go and edit something other than Kansas City-related articles and show you can actually be a net positive on here. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support User needs time away from this area to demonstrate they can edit productively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, discussion here has convinced me to Oppose a site ban. I do think the editing issue is narrow enough that a Topic ban will suffice. Future editing problems can be dealt with on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban This demands a site ban, instead of just topic ban. The abuser has WP:GAMEd the system to infinity and beyond, and is WP:SEALIONing all the way to now. He absolutely did read the unblocking admin's warning, and is now gaslighting you with selective amnesia, weaponized incompetency, weaponized dishonesty, and DARVO. Some have repeatedly and willingly fallen for it, with reckless administrative abandon both in the unblocking and here in ANI, and we need an apology. You act like Wikipedia is a government and editing is a human right, but you still go completely off the deep end to defend the indefensible. The First Amendment wouldn't defend this without a ton of paid court staff, and then they all would lose the case. He never should have been unblocked; everyone should have been notified and the SPI should have been summarily discussed and at least linked there. He abused this very ANI thread by relitigating his WP:RGW rant here, and in the unblocking thread, and that's all being largely ignored here. He abused the alleged 1 year of WP:SO by abusing other websites like Reddit (where he confessed that he'd also been banned from Discord for the same thing) with floods of deleted sockpuppets and spammed posts to relitigate the identical rants, attack other redditors, and get banned there too. A topic ban would be complicit because Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and is WP:NOTTHERAPY for magically rehabilitating people's personal problems. I'd be surprised if anybody even read this whole thread, because few have directly responded, and nobody responded to my offer for private proof of the off-wiki abuse which includes one reddit moderator I know personally. Since unblocked, he re-demonstrated that he's a WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:SPA that is only interested in a super complex general topic where WP:CIR but is totally and unteachably lacking. In this very ANI thread, he violated WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, again as always before for six years, which is also blockable. I notified the Talk pages of @Yamla and Liz:, who I assume have ping disabled, and Liz had requested a followup on this thread. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Smuckola had previously included ChatGPT's responses to the above reports; I have removed them as unhelpful to resolving the situation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{subst:i*https://ibb.co/6chr8qCC Kansascitt1225 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)}}

• Support site ban per User Smuckola and as an observer of wiki project Kansas City, I must interject the observation of the blatant cycle of abuse KansasCit uses both inside and outside Wikipedia disguised as “but I didn’t know, give me one more chance baby. I will be better this time. I’m so sorry.” I was harassed in Reddit, though the user has no idea who I am on that platform. Once the user is out of chances with one particular admin, they will find a new admin who listens to their fake apology and let them ruin a few more articles and make a few more editors leave again, get another ban, then the cycle of abuse begins again with yet another new admin and, “I’m sorry Baby, I didn’t know, it will be different this time.” It is never ever different. In many years it has not ever changed. Within hours of a ban being lifted the user returns to breaking Wikipedia rules he was just warned banned for months about. User has been explained in every way, to a sickening number of times, I reiterate, not only in Wikipedia, he has been warned and banned in Reddit and on other platforms for the same grievances! It is recognized by all user is abusive and unchanging, unwilling to accept correction or learn. The abuse must end. User has been informed of what they do incorrectly and how to correct it and refuse. Please be the leadership we all need right now and say no for us all, stop enabling the abuse. Thank you. TheFactFairy (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheFactFairy, a cycle of harassing people off-wiki is something you should take to arbcom, not here. I'm not saying that to dismiss your concerns - if you and others have been harassed by this editor off-wiki we shouldn't be ignoring that here. But it's arbcom that can deal with the off-wiki evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you felt like I harassed you outside wiki in anyway I apologize if it was even me, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by harassing you outside of Wikipedia though. I realized the rules aren’t the Same on Wikipedia as other places and Wikipedia holds higher standards. On Reddit you can have multiple accounts and throwaways and it doesn’t really matter, unlike on Wikipedia . As far as the one more chance thing, this is actually the first time I’ve been unblocked on Wikipedia ever and I genuinely intend on following community rules and adding to the encyclopedia. user:Smuckola As far as DARVO I have a mostly peaceful life with little fighting and I’m def not a domestic abuser!! I am kind of bothered by the accusations tho. I wasn’t necessarily trying to make you seem like you were the “bad guy” or something in this situation, just saying I would hope that I could have a second chance and you wouldn’t assume bad faith of me after being unblocked. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey User:FOARP and User:HandThatFeeds I’m ok editing in other things to prove I can be a good contributor to Wikipedia. I must have been mistaken about what the main disruption was. I thought my main issue on my unblock was to not repeat the behaviors such as sock puppetry and edit warring and only editing one account. After my unblock, I used the talk pages on these articles instead of edit warring. I was genuinely trying to be cautious not to go back to those behaviors and be non disruptive. I explained in my unblock that I simply wanted to make clear there were more jobs in the Johnson county area and there was a higher density in those cities, with some having less single family housing. I don’t think these would have been looked at as disruptive if it wasn’t for my past behavior.

Looking at my past disruption tho, from before my block you may be correct that I might need to prove elsewhere that I can help the project. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban. This editor has been chronically problematic for seven years with a long, long record of sockpuppetry and axe grinding about their personal content hobby horse about a big city that they insist on denigrating and a nearby county that they insist on praising. Recently, the editor managed to get unblocked and immediately returned to the exact same pattern of bad city/good county axe grinding that led to their block. In retrospect, unblocking this editor was clearly an error and the error should be corrected by imposing a site ban. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. Support topic ban. Kansascitt did indeed go back to editing on KC in a problematic way, but they appear to have at least tried to seek consensus and avoid edit warring. Instead of being told why they were wrong when they tried to engage with @Smuckola on article talk, Smuckola rudely and summarily dismissed them. I've already addressed Smuckola's aspersions about the process of the unblock above. The long, rambling ChatGPT mess he posted isn't worth a response. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Unlike voorts, I don't see how sealioning and just asking questions on someone's talk page about still not understanding how their edits are problematic can mitigate seven years of sockpuppetry and an immediate return to the problematic behavior they were originally blocked for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  Kansascitt didn't ask questions on anyone's talk page. He posted on article talk after he was reverted by Smuckola. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Sealioning should be met with nothing less than a topic-ban, as it's a bad-faith effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. The fact that this user has had a myriad of issues in the past and went right back to the exact same shit after coming back from a seven-year ban (whose lifting is questionable given the sockpuppetry) means they never intended to act in good-faith to begin with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  What does your link to 3X have to do with anything? Kansascitt appealed the ban and the appeal was accepted at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (make the topic ban "Kansas and Missouri" instead of just "Kansas City"), oppose site ban. I don't see why we would site ban someone for pov-pushing when their pov is so apparently limited. Is there some reason to believe that they will push similar povs elsewhere if simply topic-banned? But also, I'll be honest: my AGF-meter runs real, real low when someone complains about how they haven't been notified to a specific discussion about an unban and casts aspersions about it being out of process for that reason - and doesn't notify any of the editors involved in that unban. I'll go ahead and do that for the ones who aren't already here: Deepfriedokra, Thebiguglyalien, Kenneth Kho, HouseBlaster. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, and also @Beeblebrox, who was peripherally involved in an earlier unban request that went nowhere because no one but @HandThatFeeds showed up to it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I'm quite pissed reading @Smuckola's egregious wall of text bludgeoning with insults and aspersions against admins, participants, and Kansascitt. In any case, I provided a review of the content at issue last time, they must not have read it before submitting a wall of text. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:VEXBYSTERANG might be due here. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster even caught them using ChatGPT to create a lengthy aspersions, which is way too tendentious for an experienced editor with 30K edit. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It was a mistake of me to go editing back in the same topic area as soon as I was unblocked. I thought my biggest issue was using multiple accounts and edit warring. I hadn’t used socks or edited the project in over a year. I would atleast hope I could get a topic ban so I could regain community trust elsewhere and make constructive edits. Possibly I just can’t see passed a certain biased on the KC rested pages idk, but the article saying the economy is being anchored by Kansas City Missouri seems strange to me when half of it is in Kansas. That’s just my perspective honestly Kansascitt1225 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, waiting their response on my talk page message [224] to decide topic ban I fully disagree that they are intentionally POV pushing, I think they are unaccustomed to due weight. I also notice that they ceased editing Kansas and Missouri when Smuckola confronted them in their user talk page, but Grey Wanderer still can't help but escalate it to ANI four days later, a total lack of AGF to me. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose topic ban They have made commitments below, it appears to me as I talked with them on their talk page that they are a good faith editor and able to listen. For example, they understand that due weight comes into play when adding information such as crime or car-dependency even if correct. For example, they are able to recognize after research that Kansas City is the largest city in Kansas City (MO)—Overland Park—Kansas City (KS) Combined Metro Area according to Census Bureau naming scheme, and made a suggestion that in my opinion addresses every concern: changing "anchored in Kansas City" to "the largest city is Kansas City". I think the commitment below 500 edits can be enforced by blocks, while the commitment between 500 and 1000 edits can be voluntary. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi I am taking the great advice of user:Kenneth Kho. I have read giving due weight on Wikipedia and understand to make the articles neutral and balanced and not adding too much about one specific idea or one pov. If I can avoid sanctions I will stay away from the topic at-least until I'm extended confirmed and have 1000 edits to show I can edit well and be collaborative. In the meantime I plan to familiarize myself with policies and edit things along the lines of Cars/automotive , cities outside of Kansas/Missouri, read interesting articles while fixing typos and edit articles about mountains, peaks and information on different skyscrapers (again outside of Kansas and Missouri) along with other interests I come across Kansascitt1225 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose SBAN, oppose TBAN on the grounds that KC1225 voluntarily edit somewhere else and show good edits. JayCubby 19:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban per Smuckola. And just looking at this user's recent edits to Kansas City, Missouri the subtle POV-pushing is very clear. Inserting "car dependent" in two different places in the article shows that the user hasn't changed motivations or modus operandi at all. Davemc0 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, Neutral on topic ban per HandthatFeeds and asilvering. I agree that the issue is narrow enough that if any sanction is to be applied, a topic ban should be enough to prevent most of the problems; a site ban is overkill. It also offers some WP:ROPE that the user can improve their editing style in a topic they're not problematic in. Per Kenneth Kho, I also noticed that KC1225 stopped editing Kansas and Missouri since the report opened, so that shows some signs that the editor is willing to listen to some advice. I also agree with HouseBlaster and voorts that Smuckola's now-deleted ChatGPT analysis was unhelpful. Perhaps another way to resolve the issue is some sort of interaction ban between the two users? Unnamed anon (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deceptive article re-creation

• Victorįä Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To my knowledge, this person's name is never spelled this way, which it makes it appear that the article was deceptively recreated by Alicampabelle after the Victoria Larsen deletion debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and draft at the deceptive title. There's currently a draft at Draft:Victoria Larsen that I've left alone. Although, does anyone else think the image at that draft article looks AI-generated? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it at first glance, but the usual tells aren't there (hair looping back on itself, uneven pupils, mismatched earrings etc.)

I think this is a genuine - albeit very heavily edited - photo. There are a lot of very similar images when you search her name online, things like her hairstyle & the background are almost identical so they're probably from the same photoshoot. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Think I found the original here. Same earrings, same hair, same dress. Definitely not own work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

In the old days, when a photo looked "off", you just assumed it was air-brushed. Then, you just assumed it was photoshopped. Now, my first instinct is AI. You're both probably right, probably not AI. Anyway, PMC nom'd it for speedy on Commons, and I've removed it from the draft article. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean to be fair, a bunch of image enhancement tools now use some form of ML or other stuff often called AI. So images like that might very well be AI generated. In this case, since the photos were from a professional shoot I don't know if such tools were used or more traditional editing but it's possible they were since I think such tools are getting pervasive. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Pretty obviously non-notable, a win at that very minor pageant does not make one notable, the draft could be deleted with no issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't judge draft articles based on notability. If we did, BOOM!, most of the drafts would be gone. However, if you find it to be promotional, then deletion is a possibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Which it really isn't. Eight sentences, written in a dry neutral voice, everything sourced. I'm certainly unsold on the subject's notability, but there's nothing promotional nor peacock-ish about the draft. Ravenswing 07:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

user:Faster than Thunder and biting/completely unsupported claims of policy

• Faster than Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Faster than Thunder has repeatedly reverted my well-sourced edits on Darren Beattie without any policy rationale, other than a completely unsourced claim that "Racism is not a valid thing to include in the lead of an article; state anything related to racism in its own section". They have also declined to discuss or participate on the talk page before making these controversial reverts, and now is involved in edit-warring with me. I will not make another revert but this is part of a longer-standing pattern dating from 2022 of hostile editing patterns towards other editors. 66.131.254.204 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Your edits violated WP:BLP by adding a contentious label that is not mentioned in the sources that you cited. Faster than Thunder was correct to revert. This is a content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It was this edit that was under dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It is wrong to use contentious, libelous labels like "racist" without adequate citation. In fact, contentious labels should not be in the article lead at all, even with citation. Controversial content like this goes in its own section (or subsection), but it must be cited adequately. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 03:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Odd claims by Pbritti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pbritti gave the lie to three full professors at [225]. Two of them have named chairs. The claim Cited sources do not support the claim "false attribution" for all four Gospels (though verify such terminology application towards Matthew and, to a lesser degree, Mark) is bogus.

"I have not dealt at any length with false attribution here, even though it affects a number of the writings of the New Testament (the Gospels, 2 and 3 John), not to mention later writers (Pseudo-Justin, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo-Chrysostom, and on and on). In many instances the attributions may have been made in full cognizance that there were no real grounds for making the ascriptions (the Gospel of Matthew); in other instances they were probably simply made by mistake (Pseudo-Justin)." From the WP:CITED book by Ehrman. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

So, this is a content dispute? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The claim that my edits fail WP:V could be seen as gaslighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid tgeorgescu is bringing a content dispute to ANI again. Besides not exhausting discussion options on the talk page—a discussion I'm engaging in—they've repeatedly gone off-topic in the discussion. Considering that the source they first inserted said that the term "false attribution" gives a false impression, I challenged their position. If they want to discuss it, they're welcome to continue doing so. Not sure that's gaslighting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I'm talking about Cited sources do not support the claim. It's either a mistake on your part, or if you mean it, it's gaslighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

gaslighting People keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. I really don't think that they are "manipulating [you] into questioning [your] own perception of reality". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

But the WP:RS do WP:V the claim. So their claim is patently untrue. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your first stop—instead of confirming whether your uncertain interpretation of my words was accurate—was ANI? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Your words seem patently untrue. I cannot construe those words in any other way. So those words are either WP:ASPERSIONS or trying to pull the wool upon my eyes. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unjustified accusations and contributions removal

Dear administrators, I would like to report disruptive behaviour by User:LeontinaVarlamonva.

Repeatedly removed my constructive contributions without justification and falsely accused me of being abusive and engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence: [[226]], [[227]], [[228]]

Later deleted my attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page, suppressing discussion: [[229]]

I request assistance in addressing this issue. Thank you. Tahomaru (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It appears at @LeontinaVarlamonva is accusing you of being a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Ping909 in the edit summaries[230] and reached out directly to the blocking admin, @ScottishFinnishRadish on their talk page[231] who at least initially believes that you are not a sock. LeontinaVarlamonva should be cautious about casting WP:ASPERSIONS outside of a formal complaint without specific evidence at a formal WP:SPI report. With the good faith assumption that you are not connected with the Ping909 account, you absolutely did the correct thing by trying to first discuss it on their talk page and then bring it here. TiggerJay (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt somebodys feelings. These pages have been targeted by users who seem similar so I was basing things on that. My initial step was to contact administrator with specific information, so it's not like I just had only suspicion and nothing else. Thank you for referencing WP:SPI report channel. I will finish my conversation with administrator and based on his recommendation may open report once I gather more information.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva I see that the edit summary you gave here was rm threats by abusive account. I cannot find any threats in Tahomaru's talk page message, other than saying If this issue is not resolved, I will have no choice but to seek assistance from Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes or administrators. - I cannot see how this is problematic as editors are entitled to use appropriate dispute resolution processes if they can't reach a reasonable compromise on their own. Perhaps a bit premature to mention it in the initial comment, but I would not agree that it could be construed as a threat. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant by "threat". It seemed harsh that newly created account suddenly knew all these encylcopedia rules and was already trying to intimidate me (or it seemed) by saying I would be reported. That's why I may have overreacted and removed it while being upset about it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I admit that I could have handled it more appropriately. The way my posts were repeatedly deleted without discussion or proper justification was very frustrating and I assumed that @LeontinaVarlamonva is unwilling to communicate with me at all. I apologise for acting out of frustration and I remain committed to resolving this issue. Tahomaru (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

While it is slightly unusual for a new editor to know about Wikipedia policies in detail, it is not in itself suspicious. All of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are transparent and publicly viewable by anyone, and many people edit or otherwise interact with Wikipedia anonymously prior to creating an account. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

While I understand that you contacted an administrator regarding your concerns, I would like to point out that you deleted my posts without discussion or explanation beforehand. This made it difficult for me to address your concerns or correct any potential misunderstandings.

Regarding your comment about my knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, I believe it's important for all editors to familiarise themselves with the guidelines to contribute effectively. While I may not have been editing here for long, I have taken the time to study Wikipedia's policies to ensure my contributions are constructive and in line with community standards. Tahomaru (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Part of the reason is I have spent lots of time engaging with some users in the past and didn't want to make more time commitment doing the same for an account that may be blocked as fraudulent account in a few hours or few days...It didn't seem like good investment and I jumped trigger in heat of moment.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that to deal with fraudulent accounts must be frustrating, and I don’t blame you for how things have unfolded. If you're open to it, I'd be happy to close this report and bring the discussion back to the talk pages where my posts were deleted, should you restore them. Tahomaru (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I will take recommendation from TiggerJay and do report on WP:SPI so that its official and I don't base things on just my suspicions. I'll let them do rest.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Since @LeontinaVarlamonva has opted for officially submitting their report on WP:SPI, I take it that their decision to delete my posts was unjustified, and I will restore them. If it is agreeable, I consider this issue resolved. Thanks to the admins for looking into this. Tahomaru (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend that since the SPI investigation is pending that you refrain from reintroducing those edits directly in article space. As a suggested alternative, you can use the WP:EDITREQUEST process on the article talk page, presenting specific changes with proper citations. TiggerJay (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll respect that. It was mainly the talk page posts that were deleted anyway. Tahomaru (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

* Courtsey link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benga502 § 12 February 2025 TiggerJay (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Very incivil and juvenile (and contentless) comment by User:Pogorrhœa on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1275440444. There are a lot of such comments there, but I think that was one of the worst. Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to notify Pogorr of this thread on their talk page. I've done this for you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)We alerted them literally at the exact same time. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've gone back and edited my comments in that discussion to comport with WP:CIVIL. There weren't "a lot" of them, there were three (3). I was uncivil, yes, I admit that; I was aggravated by the yucky tone of some participants—including yours (1, 2); you give every appearance of having decided to play self-proclaimed cop, guns a-blazin' in response to petty infractions. At the very least, you're not helping lower the temperature any. Why, just look at this ANI post of yours. Per RUCD, you could've tossed a note on my talk page saying "Hey, be civil!", and the result would've been the same: I would have gone and edited my comments. But nope, you went directly to hauling me up on charges. Seriously? C'mon. Maybe engage a little less. Maybe have a cuppa tea and a biscuit and a few deep breaths. The sun will rise in the east tomorrow, whether or not the world knows how upset you got at a line of words on a screen. Pogorrhœa (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Pogorrhœa, I can see you are trying but you still sound patronizing. I understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but I'd try to use a more formal language in discussions and write less like you are posting on social media. Often incivil language comes when editors use a very casual approach like they are posting on Twitter when, to tell you the truth, "stuffy" is more appropriate for an encyclopedia like this little project of ours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Liz. Pogorrhœa (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think, going back a step, the best advice I can give is don't edit current affairs on Wikipedia, unless you are prepared to ignore your edit being reverted or commented on. This probably goes double for anything related to Trump executive orders. It's the best way to avoid the approach of angry mastodons. In any case, I don't see any other administrative action, other than to just chill out a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord ought to redact/strike their comments as well. They were clearly uncivil. Beyond that, as someone who has living relatives who vividly remember their experience under "colonial overlords", perhaps the OP ought to be more careful in their interactions. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the solution for the heat on Talk:Gulf of Mexico is the same one I proposed on the article talk - a moratorium on discussions about putting "Gulf of America" in the lede to support aggressive clerking of new threads and to allow the archiving of existing threads complaining about the consensus coming out of the recent RfC. The problem, as it stands, is that the people who want Gulf of America in the lede don't seem to want to acknowledge that the RfC found a consensus against inclusion. This is not helped by the fact that many of the people commenting there are new editors who don't seem to understand much about how Wikipedia works. This is leading to a lot of fraying patience. Let's just lock down this settled matter and enforce the extant RfC. We don't need to entertain a forever-argument. We also don't need to be disciplining people over-much for losing their cool. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tomford1010

• Tomford1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account solely exists to vandalize the article on Emily Reid, removing sourced claims and inserting unsourced claims and claims to have a personal connection to the subject. There hasn't been any press on this actress choosing a stage name that spells her first name differently, but that hasn't stopped this account from changing it constantly. Even if the registry of Juliard would be concidered enough to change it, the way this account goes about this is totally unconstructive and aggressive. 1Veertje (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

They have multiple accounts that have done this for a while now •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You may want to create an SPI for this user. They have one other account Tomforx which has a very similar editing pattern. That and the multiple IPs that do the same edits as well. Conyo14 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Tomford1010 for 72 hours for edit warring and persistently adding unreferenced content. I will look into the other editors. Protection of the article may be required if disruption persists. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Notatall00

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Notatall00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Called me an "Islamic fundamentalist" just because I opened an RM here, called @Joshua Jonathan a "White Christian supremist" and in the same message said "Wikipedia is all about making perception." They have been engaged in disruptive editing and have an ongoing SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loveforwiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

From Notatall00's talk page: "😂😂😂 Actually you should have blocked, not me. You are Propogandist with your deep state. But alas, Wikipedia has been taken over by leftist and isIamists like you. Who always search the item which suits them." Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ohh so you have a whole gang of IsIamists and Christians fundamentalist. Wow.
Whole Wikipedia is propoganda site of far lestists. Works to build narrative. -from the same talk page [232] (now deleted). Never seen someone commit wikisuicide live before 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I showed them the door out cuz us deep states ఆ run Wikipedia i have been having too much fun on Wikipedia. •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

called me a pedo(what the fuck?) here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hrs for personal attacks. After the block, they can apologize, and explain how they will work in a collaborative manner. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  they clearly wont •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I dont think that they are going to work in a collaborative manner anytime soon (at least using this account (intentionally worded)), esp with a history of saying: you seems to be born from poop -here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just yanked TPA from this. They're welcome to behave like an adult when unblocked, but I find that unlikely. Star Mississippi 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

cyberwolf and Abo Yemen, it's best if you don't play games with trolls and egg them on. They were going to get blocked, you don't need to encourage them to dig themselves into a deeper hole. Your time is more valuable than that. Plus, by repeating their personal attacks, even ironically, you could find yourself in trouble. Remember, Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore to which I'd add "Report". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks in contentious area

User Envyforme, who since 2018 has not edited anything outside the topic of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., repeatedly attacks other users in posts that are 100% off-topic and ad hominem [233], [234] despite already having been warned [235]. Given the already contentious nature of the article and high tensions, repeated off-topic insults are not beneficiary. Given the lack of any other contribution to WP for seven years, everything about this user says WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. I have been attacked multiple times on this article because the underlying consensus of it is biased and not accurate. Proper news sources have been provided multiple times my users. Myself included. If every time someone has a disagreement on something, is the default to report it to an incident because you disagree? Seems pretty convoluted coming from me. Envyforme (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You were not reported for a disagreement, but for making ad hominem attacks unrelated to the discussion. I add your reply to the ANI-notice, as it provides further proof of your attitude to WP and other users [236]. It is concerning that you cannot tell the difference between having different factual opinions and attacking other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Envyforme:, do not cast aspersions on other editors. Focus on contributions, not conduct. And no, "Say that to them" is not an appropriate response when told this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

P Blocked from the article and talk although a good case could be made for a site block. @Envyforme this is not an invitation to be disruptive elsewhere or the block will be widened. Indef because they don't edit regularly enough for a time limited one to be meaningful. Star Mississippi 01:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Myna50: Interest conflict and removal of sourced statements @ Bhakti Marga

For context: Myna50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other users with very similar editing styles have a longer history of disruptive and biased editing at the German version of Bhakti Marga (organisation) and Vishwananda . User Bertramz accurately described it as a "carefully dosed strategy to attrition editors by removing critical content which consists of removing individual critical information at intervals of days and replacing it a little later by hymns of praise". Myna50 has already been topic banned on the German Wiki for these two articles, as well as another user who uses exactly the same style. Now, they try to start exactly the same thing again on the English version of Bhakti Marga, removing well-sourced content while placing extremly long-winded and absurd paragraphs in terms of content on the discussion site. Their statements show, if viewed from a very benevolent point of view, at least a complete unfamiliarity with the way how sources work on Wikipedia. For example, they are trying to get a source from the well-known German newspaper FOCUS removed because (!) it is only available in an archived form. However, they want to keep a "source" that is obviously, plain and simply a statement from Vishvanandas attorney team. Because of the history of these users and articles in the German wiki and because all these issues have already been pointed out to Myna50 multiple times in German, I have a very short fuse. Iluzalsipal (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Iluzalsipal,

First, we have no influence over editing on the German Wikipedia. If you have concerns about editing on that project, please bring it up there on the article talk pages or a community noticeboard.

As for the English Wikipedia, it looks like Myna50 has made ONE edit to Bhakti Marga (organisation) and ONE edit in 2025 to Vishwananda although they edited that article more extensively last year. And, to their credit, they have started discussion on both of those article's talk pages, one of which you have participated in and the other you have not. I recommend that if you are concerned about these two articles on this project, you participate more in these discussions so you can reach a resolution on the points of disagreement or you can take your dispute to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. But we aren't going to involve ourselves in a dispute occuring on another Wikimedia project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I do see that Myna50 has only been blocked from editing the article Bhakti Marga (Religionsgemeinschaft) on the German Wikipedia. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in these discussions here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't reasonably engage in a constructive discussion with the user. I know that people did already point out to the user multiple times that sources being broken or only existing in an archived form is not a reason for their removal, as well as having exactly the same discussion I am supposed to be having with them this time, about the same sources, with the same arguments. All of this to no avail, so I have to assume malice at this time.

A user with the same tactics, styles and goals is MariamEQ (to the point that @Squasher even considered sockpuppetry). I spent months trying to reasonably debate this user, assuming good faith. In this case, a resolution of the discussion was impossible because the user constantly applied double standards to sources and seemed to have no idea of concepts like "relevance" or "neutrality of sources", exactly as Myna50, at times even regarding the same sources as Myna50 now. They also tried to argue that the concept of NPOV would mean that all of my edits would have to be balanced pro- and anti-Vishwananda (not the resulting article, the edits themselves). This is nearly impossible when editing an article that already has a strong bias. Again, the same arguments as Myna50. Myna50 is also apparently very aware of my conflict with this editor. I have no motivation to uselessly reformulate what others already said to Myna50 or MariamEQ, because I know that they know that I know that this will lead to nothing. Iluzalsipal (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There also have been multiple other users with suspected pro-BM conflict of interest whitewashing these articles.(for the second link, those that Bertramz mentioned)

As well as legal threats on the German wiki. This is also part of why I'm not assuming good faith regarding this user. Iluzalsipal (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Translated version of this comment by l3manja about the user:

Someone who threatens the (co-)author of a series of WP articles with injunctive relief via his lawyer and tells him not to disrupt the planned adaptation process of his organization with the help of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. surely cannot be very serious about cooperating with these articles. But this is exactly what happened here through Mr. Komalram's lawyer, Ben Herle. I have a copy of such a letter. From Wikipedia's point of view, this is quite absurd, it's hard to believe. Not everyone can afford an expensive lawyer and wants to spend years in court. And who is in the mood for a years-long edit war in which other and new Bhakti Marga followers take it in turns to play their part? The fact is that, assuming something like a compromise is reached, these people will never be satisfied with it, they will gradually try to do something like whitewashing. Iluzalsipal (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

What you post is disturbing but we can not take action about a post from 2023 on the German Wikipedia. If you can't assume good faith here then I suggest you don't collaborate with this editor. But unless there is misconduct on the English Wikipedia, we can't do anything about what happens on other projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Accusations of lack of care/competence and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following an AfD close they weren't happy with, Horse Eye's Back confronted me on my Talk page. Initially civilized, the exchange culminated with the following: Your reading of your fellow editors arguments lacks the care and competence I would have expected. If I see it becoming a problem with your closes in general and not just a singular lapse in judgement I will escalate the issue. Have a nice day..

I spend a considerable amount of time and effort closing some of the most contentious, complex AfDs here. I do not appreciate having my competence baselessly questioned, nor having my closes dismissed as a "lapse in judgement". Short of an overturn at DRV, I'd ask for that offensive remark to be stricken out by Horse Eye's Back. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No... It culminated in "What wild, baseless accusation, or implied threats? I've been polite and civil, I've expressed empathy for the tough job you had in making the close due to the confusing nature, I have not accused you of anything I have simply pointed out that your closure is not of the quality I expect from an admin closure (perhaps your extended absence has caused you to fall behind in terms of best practices) and I've clearly explained why I think so with specific examples. Individually it is not an issue, but if its part of a pattern it would be... And following appropriate wikipedia procedures is not a threat." and I remain willing to take back anything that you still think is a wild, baseless accusation, or implied threat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that I have amended the title from "Accusations of "lack of competence" and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back:"[237] because while one of those is a direct quote the other isn't and presenting them together like that implies that both are direct quotes, thats the sort of thing I mean by a lack of care/competence... I don't even disagree with the close's outcome, it was within what was reasonable bases upon what was on the table it was just wanting in that instead of addressing the core arguments made by either side it sniped at the weakest tangents of one side of the argument in a way which massively overemphasized their importance to the outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your change of the title. Please refrain from editing other people's comments here. If you wish to contest the accuracy of my claims, present your own side, rather than edit that of others. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The quote isn't "lack of competence" it is "Your reading of your fellow editors arguments lacks the care and competence I would have expected." Regardless it is struck... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, avoid needless speculation on why, in your eyes, an editor's action may not be up to your standards. I haven't reviewed this closure but OwenX is known in AFDLand to take on some of the most thorniest and most complicated AFD discussion closures for which I know I'm grateful. You can disagree with a decision without making judgmental comments about him as a person or admin. WP:DRV is really the place for this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is obvious that trust has broken down between the protagonists here, so this issue can only be decided at WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• De-escalate I always appreciate OwenX's detailed closes and willingness to close complicated messes. I similarly don't recall having any issue with HEB before which is why I found their confrontation of OwenX surprising. My comment at Owen's Talk stands, but I do appreciate HEB's striking of some of their comment. Take the contentious close to DRV if there was a procedural error, otherwise just time to move on. Star Mississippi 21:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not touching that discussion with a ten foot pole, which is why I didn't close it. But even if it was overturned at DRV, the comment was still out of line. Humans make procedural errors (not saying this one, just in general), that doesn't mean there's a problem with the closer's conduct. Star Mississippi 21:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! I now see this matter as closed. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General disruptive editing by Littletpott

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Littletpott (talk · contribs · count) has been making edits that are generally disruptive including the addition of unsourced trivia to pages and the creation of pages on non-notable subjects. They are not responding to talk page messages and have previously received a 31-hour block. I'm not sure if this is a vandal or just a WP:CIR case but it seems a longer or indefinite block is needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I wish you wouldn't talk about me like that. I don't like how it makes me feel. I'm trying my best to be a productive and educated member of the community and I don't have as much coding experience as you so this is really hard for me and I don't know why you call my coding or work negative without asking me why I do the things I do. If you don't like how I sound that's your fault. Littletpott (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Littletpott: I will assume good faith, but why are you only now responding after you have been previously warned multiple times and blocked for disruptive editing? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Littletpott seeing as they continued their disruptive editing/vandalism after the previous block by Peaceray (courtesy ping). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and if they can make an unblock request showing they understand why their previous edits were disruptive and that they can slow down, I would not be opposed to an unblock at a future date. Fathoms Below (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unable to file a UTRS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, myself @Churnalist47. First of all I apologize for editing without logging in but I had no other option. My talk page access is removed, my unblock request declined by an admin and I am unable to file a UTRS as they had asked me to. Please help me out.103.203.73.33 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC) My unblock request is as follows: I was blocked with no valid reasons and no proper investigation. I also wanted to add that if I get unblocked I want to work on the drafts Draft:Neha Harsora, Draft:Alisha Parveen, Draft:Shivam Khajuria, Draft:Ram Bhavan, Draft:Khushbu Rajendra, Draft: Ayesha Singh, Draft:Yogendra Singh (actor), Draft:Bhumika Gurung, Draft:Jamai No. 1, Draft:Simaran Kaur, Draft:Sayali Salunkhe, Draft:Main Dil Tum Dhadkan, Draft:Radhika Muthukumar and Draft:Priyanka Choudhary. I'm informing about my future projects now itself because I got to know that some of these drafts are controversial drafts and were earlier created by socks which is why I was blocked when I created Draft:Neha Harsora and Draft:Alisha Parveen. I would also like to work on Draft:Rajat Verma, Draft:Savi Thakur and Draft:Aleya Ghosh. I assure everyone here that I'm not a sock of any of the socks who previously created these drafts so I kindly request to consider my unblock request and kindly unblock me. I also want to inform that I would like to create these drafts following the article Kritika Singh Yadav which was created by the sock of Aleyammarockz which is User:Mycrushrajveer. I will be using Kritika Singh Yadav's article as my base because I just found that article is beautifully created. This is all about my behavioural editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.203.73.33 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Your UTRS appeal was declined six hours ago. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johnnynumerofive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Johnnynumerofive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Johnnynumerofive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made multiple disruptive edits related to the deletion of references to official minority languages, related to Balkan topics where more strict guidelines implementation may apply. Despite initial attempts to assume good faith, the user has shown no interest in engaging in constructive discussion. Instead, they have continued to push a nationalist point of view, implying conspiracy theories, and disregarded the community’s efforts to address the issues raised. The user has been provided with guidance through their talk page, as well as relevant policies and discussions (e.g., WP:Serbia and edit summaries), but has refused to engage productively. This behavior raises concerns about potential disruption or trolling, and further attention or action may be required.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have diffs of examples of this behavior? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for not listing it directly. It primarily includes various settlements in Vojvodina such as Zrenjanin, Šid, Subotica, Novi Sad, Sombor... To simplify, I will use the case of Novi Sad. In 2015 minimal community agreement was reached to include minority languages in infobox when they have co-official status Check here and the appropriate usage in infobox was clarified on this instance. We did not deal with other legitimate cases where there is a large minority speaking population (even majority minority) but specifically with cases where relevant local, regional or national authority grants some language official status. Vojvodina is exemplary case in Europe when it comes to minority languages protection policies, yet, it is occasionally target of nationalist POV pushing both on Wikipedia and beyond. This is relevant context. In case of Novi Sad, the local statute defines 4 official languages (Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Pannonian Rusyn) so I reintroduced Hunagrian name here (12:43, 30 January 2025). Johnnynumerofive removed minority names with This edit (23:51, 5 February 2025). Believing it was honest misunderstanding I reinstated it Here (21:02, 8 February 2025). I followed it with comment on editor's talk page Here ( 21:09, 8 February 2025). I received short, almost rude reply Here followed by removal of names from the article Here (02:30, 9 February 2025). At that point I noticed we are potentially entering disruptive cycle so after I reinstated established practice Here (08:16, 9 February 2025) I asked what the editor in question actually disagree about Here (08:19, 9 February 2025) followed by my request for imput from WikiProject Serbia Here (09:17, 9 February 2025). The discussion developed on editor's talk page where I want to point out my effort to explain the current situation with this Edit and you should check the whole exchange on the talk page where you may want to check the most recent comment which raises my suspicion of troll behaviours since the community concensus was in fact explained earlier. In the meantime I received feedback from the WP Serbia as well. I finally reintroduced minority languages with additional references yesterday with this Edit here after all of this to be followed by clear rejection from the involved editor (after all efforts) to engage in constructive contributions (See Here). In this light (especially of this last edit), I do believe certain measures may be justified since there is clear unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Unwillingness? My last comment on the talk page discussion shows the exact opposite. Please review more diligently prior to such an accusation. Thank you. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the policy link as well as an answer to the question on it's uniform usage. I said I woll gladly revert my own edits once a discussion is had on those queries. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are asking for since you were familiarised with the existing community consensus (2015 RfC & Technical clarification) multiple times on your talk page, in edit summaries and via discussion on WP Serbia. Additional flexibility and patience was shown towards you as a new user yet you refuse to engage in constructive dialogue, you clearly go against the established consensus without explaining your rationale and most recently, you claim that there is a discussion justifying removal which actually does not exist in edit summary (exactly the opposite is the feedback you received). All of this while implying some kind of conspiracy against Serbia etc. I urge you therefore once again to restrain from disruptive nationalist POV-pushing while also raising this report here to avoid any direct edit conflict as much as possible and to bring the attention to the issue we are facing.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't implying conspiracy, just noticed it wasn't being applied uniformly. I will revert my edits, but this is obviously a contentious topic. I have a feeling I am not an outlier with my point of view. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. They have been reverted already. Cheers. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If we are now able to enter more productive and constructive phase I think this report should be disregarded. As for different opinions, everyone is of course entitled to one and I have my own (I would for example prefer much more inclusive approach). Topic of (ethnic) minorities rights and visibility is somewhat contentious (as it was beyond Wikipedia throughout 20th century) so it is certainly good to engage in dialogue if you want to change some current standing compromise agreement.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United Airlines

Bringing attention to User:Norco3921's potentially disruptive editing patterns on the United Airlines page, particularly in the lead section. Besides making frequent minor edits, as evident in the revision history, the user has become defensive while attempting significant changes to existing content—justifying them with subjective claims of redundancy and poor writing. Some editors, including myself, have offered opinions regarding WP:MOS and WP:NPOV, while I suggested in good faith through the talk page and relevant tag that it is best practice to adhere to conventions across other airline articles for consistency and neutrality, yet the user continues to edit without substantively addressing these concerns. JCHL (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

JCHL, please provide diffs/links to edits that you found problematic. You have to lay out a case here, not just make accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is the United Airlines talk log for your review.

Article layout

Wanted to engage in a discussion with Norco123 and others in light of recent changes to the page.

The rewritten version of the intro excludes important details like the legal name of the company (required by style rules) and basic overview of the history of the company.

As to the history section, I agree that the way it existed wasn't ideal. It needs a complete rewrite. However, excerpting only the beginnings section of the History of United Airlines page isn't an acceptable solution. It may be well written, but it only covering the company history until the mid-1930s, missing a lot of critical modern history. Plus, it has a level of specificity too detailed for the mainpage.

I would propose either the history section is rewritten... or a nice summary section is written for the top of the History of United Airlines page. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the current two opening paragraphs, and a header and sentence that I incorporated into the edited opener. The previously poorly written and disjointed history section is currently just below the opening paragraphs so it is redundant and distracting from a simple and comprehensive description what United Airlines currently is, not what it was. I would think that is what the history section is for. And who says the history section in the United Airlines article has to cover all 98 years when there is a link to the comprehensive article, History of United Airlines? That is why I prefer the well written 'beginnings' paragraphs from the real history. If someone wants the whole history it is waiting for them one click away. I spent a lot of time editing the history, but still prefer the beginnings excerpt.

Extended content

United Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. United operates an extensive domestic and international route network across the United States and all six inhabited continents primarily out of its seven hubs, with Chicago–O'Hare having the largest number of daily flights and Denver carrying the most passengers in 2023. Regional service is operated by independent carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines. In 1997, United became one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today. Since its merger with Continental in 2010, United consistently ranks as one of the world's largest airlines; it is currently first by the number of destinations served and fleet size, and second in terms of revenue and market capitalization. Destinations and hubs As of January 2025, United Airlines offers nonstop flights to 217 domestic and 146 international destinations in 73 countries and territories across all six continents serving more international destinations than any other U.S. carrier. Do we need the tidbits about O'Hare and Denver in the intro? The Destinations and hubs header is above one clumsy sentence about destinations, a list of hubs and Alliances and codeshare agreements. A header such as Network might work, but this one in no way encompasses all the three sub-topics.

I spent a lot of time editing this mess (IMO) into the following paragraph along with a lot of other improvements (IMO) and RickyCourtney 'undid' them en masse (+16,877) with the following comment, "I largely disagree with these changes. Many of them are counter to the Manual of Style guidelines, and others just simply aren't an improvement." Here is my paragraph

Extended content

United Airlines is the largest airline in the world, offering the broadest network with the most destinations. It serves 217 domestic locations across the United States and 146 international destinations in 73 countries and territories on six continents. United’s extensive connectivity is supported by its seven major U.S. hubs, a partnership with five United Express-branded regional carriers, and 25 international airline partners in the Star Alliance, of which United was a founding member in 1997.

As for the title of the article is United Airlines without the Inc. None of Alaska, American, Delta, Skywest among others use their legal name in their Wikipedia articles opening paragraphs, It just reads better. I would love to see the exact style manual reference you are referring to as I couldn't find it in Wiki's style manual, but it is not a big deal either way IMO. Norco3921 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort but find it excessively promotional of the United brand. Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#ADVERTISINGwhich suggests that "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."

The paragraph begins with the statement "United Airlines is the largest airline in the world, offering the broadest network with the most destinations." While true, it should be noted that there is more than one metric in measuring airline size. More importantly, in an objective tone, the reader should only be introduced to the nature of United as a major US airline in the first line, consistent with other Wikipedia airline articles.

I suggest reverting to the former lead paragraph and making copyedits from there if necessary. JCHL (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What other metrics do you think indicate the size of an airline, and why would one mention an airline being 'major' when it is the largest? Market cap is not the size, but the value of the airline. Revenues come from things that have little to do with the size of the airline such as credit cards, oil refineries and wholly owned subsidiaries. Available seat miles are the most universally accepted metric, but when the same airline also leads in revenue passenger miles, airplanes and cities served I think calling it the largest airline is simply factual. I used United and Star Alliance references for up to date factual/numerical information, not promotional, but I replaced those with other references. Are corporate SEC filings considered promotional? Thanks for the feedback.Norco3921 (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "major" airline is one with >$1B/year in revenue. There are 57 such airlines including United with $56B and Sun Country with $1.06B. What a waste of the most important sentence on a term that has become almost meaningless.I reviewed the opening paragraphs of American, Delta and Southwest Airlines' Wikipedia articles and surprise, they all contain corporate 'fact sheets' like those that I previously used and replaced with others at your behest. I also rewrote the opening paragraph removing anything that could be considered 'promotional', I therefore request that you remove the Promotional Content warning from the United article. Thanks in advance. Norco3921 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So JCHL hasn't responded to my points here or my edits that removed anything that could possibly considered promotional. Instead he just reverted back to the meaningless (IMO) boilerplate first line. Here is his latest effort.

Extended content

"United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's largest airline in terms of fleet size and number of destinations served. United operates primarily from its seven hubs an extensive domestic and international network that includes more than 370 destinations in 75 countries across all six inhabited continents. Regional service is operated by contracted carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed in the late 1920s through the combination of several airlines, the oldest being Varney Air Lines created in 1926 by Walter Varney. He later co-founded Varney Speed Lines, the predecessor to the independent Continental Airlines which eventually merged with United in 2010. United is one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today."

Major is redundant when followed up my world's largest airline is in the very next sentence and the last sentence of the second paragraph is completely out of place. JCHL also didn't cite references that demonstrate the two metrics he cited. Norco3921 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not taken personally and would surely hate to see it descend into an edit war, but the same can be said with your recent mass edits to the lead without really consulting other editors' opinions.

As mentioned, there are established conventions to encyclopedic entries and the first line is there to state a fundamental, relatively stable fact. Qualities as dynamic as company figures can serve to augment the paragraph later, and without the "redundancy" it risks stripping things out of context and becoming promotional in tone. I have tried to accommodate your suggestions such as removing hub tidbits, but if you still feel the urge to edit I hope you can improve upon existing frameworks. JCHL (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me these established conventions that require the first line of airline articles to say it is a major airline instead of the largest airline in the world which doesn't change so often. As for consulting editors it is you who failed to address my talk entries, edits that removed anything that could be considered promotional or the citations I changed. You finally responded only now after I edited your problematic rewrite. Norco3921 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just documenting that you replaced the promotional warning without explaining what the issue was or discussing it here. I changed the opening sentence and removed the promotional warning. Norco3921 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my attempts to speak privately with JCHL, but he never responded.

Promotional or factual? What do you see as promotional about the United Airlines introductory paragraph? United Airlines is the largest airline in the world by number of airplanes, number of destinations and available seat miles as referenced and cited. Norco3921 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found another reference that I added showing United Airlines is also the largest airline by revenue passenger miles (RPMs). Norco3921 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention in this matter and sorry to bother you.

Norco3921 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime since the user is notified of this post progress has been made; consensus may not yet be reached but hopefully we can achieve that through further discussion. JCHL (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• I said "diffs" which are links to edits. I didn't recommend that you copy and paste a talk page here. Provide links to specific edits that are problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  The talk page has been copied by User:Norco3921. If helpful this diff is the beginning of the user's significant alteration of the lead section, deviating from existing content and stylistic convention across airline articles. They have also made very frequent edits since then. Again, in the meantime since the user is notified of this post minor progress has been made; consensus may not yet be reached but hopefully we can achieve that through further discussion. JCHL (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the final diff after my edits. I will try to find you what it looked like before I started editing.

Extended content

United Airlines is a global airline headquartered in Chicago, IL, serving 217 domestic locations across the United States and 146 international destinations in 75 countries and territories on six continents. United is the world's largest airline producing the most available seat miles and revenue passenger miles with the largest mainline fleet in the world.United’s extensive network utilizes seven major U.S. hubs, and partnerships with five United Express-branded regional carriers and 25 international airlines in the Star Alliance to extend its global reach. United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines beginning in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines, Varney Speed Lines.

Norco3921 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Here is the diff from before my editing.

Extended content

United Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. United operates an extensive domestic and international route network across the United States and all six inhabited continents primarily out of its seven hubs, with Chicago–O'Hare having the largest number of daily flights and Denver carrying the most passengers in 2023. Regional service is operated by independent carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines. In 1997, United became one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today. Since its merger with Continental in 2010, United consistently ranks as one of the world's largest airlines; it is currently first by the number of destinations served and fleet size, and second in terms of revenue and market capitalization.

Norco3921 (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Here is JCHL's version diff.

Extended content

United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's largest airline in terms of fleet size and number of destinations served. United operates primarily from its seven hubs an extensive domestic and international network that includes more than 370 destinations in 75 countries across all six inhabited continents. Regional service is operated by contracted carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed in the late 1920s through the combination of several airlines, the oldest being Varney Air Lines created in 1926 by Walter Varney. He later co-founded Varney Speed Lines, which evolved into the independent Continental Airlines that eventually merged with United in 2010. United is one of the five founding members of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today.

Norco3921 (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• your edits are spilling over into different topics on ANI. the reference table for united airlines isn't relevant to the dispute between abebenjoe and mvcg666b3r. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also, those still aren't diffs. See HELP:DIFF, particularly this section on how to link them. Copying and pasting makes it less likely that your posts will be read. EducatedRedneck (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Noting here that, for readability, I've collapsed the above "diffs" which are just copy-pasted source code from article versions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm posting (and slightly rephrasing) this again in case my above reply has been drowned by all the copy-pasting. Returning to my original concern, this diff is the beginning of Norco3921's significant alteration of the lead section, deviating from existing content and stylistic convention across airline articles. It had been followed by very frequent edits without first reaching consensus. In the meantime since the user is notified of this post minor progress has been made; I hope to achieve resolution through further discussion where appropriate. JCHL (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the place to start discussing would be the article talk page. I'll join the conversation, so it won't become a stalemate. I suggest this thread be left open; if issues persist, this thread can be revisited. If discussion resolves it, the thread will be auto-archived. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

References