Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180

User:Eimaivault clearly WP:NOTTHERE

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

The user is WP:NOTHERE, tediously and disruptively editing the article of Nikodim Milaš which prevents constructive editing of the article, without edit summary (24.01), then claimed to be removing "nonsensical Croatian pseudohistory" (25.01), and then a WP:POINT deletion of a whole reliably sourced section "due to spreading obvious historical bias" (12.02).

In the edit of Boris I of Bulgaria called me "you dumb ustashe" (10.02, ustashe=nazi, fascist). On the talk page of Milaš's article made three edits in which called me a "moron", accusing me of spreading "Croatian ultranationalist nonsense from their delusional 'historians'" (none of the cited Croatian academic authors and sources have anything to do with ultranationalism and even nationalism as such, neither anything cited is ultranationalist and nonsense, on the contrary, are very significant facts), "sources were baloney" (would be argued that isn't capable of recognizing WP:RS but it's merely simplistic discriminating POV), to be of "purely Croatian sources, not a singular outsider to confirm Ustashe superstitions" (complete ignorance of cited Serbian historian Tibor Živković, also later cited Sabrina P. Ramet an American academic expert on modern Yugoslavian history, and Emil Hilton Saggau), that Milaš's "just stating normal Orthodox takes" (which are everything but normal, and indicating user's own personal opinion shared with Milaš, whose many claims were Greater Serbian pseudoscientific propaganda which became even more popular during the late 1980s-early 1990s breakup and bloody war of Yugoslavia), among others.

The user claims to be a Bulgarian, and not to be spreading/defending Greater Serbian propaganda, yet seems completely the opposite, has typical WP:DUCK behavior and expression of someone whose a Serbian ultranationalist (and is atypical for Bulgarians), so the user either is one or someone interacting with such community and points of view, which essentially doesn't make any difference. Also, suddenly showed up an IP from Canada (sock?) on their talk page targeting me with made additional aspersions ([1]).

The editor was warned for personal attacks already by three editors, StephenMacky1 (10.02), Sadko (10.02), and myself ([2] on 10.02, [3] on 12.02), and were explained where to introduce and familiarize themselves with Wikipedia and editing policy, to no avail. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I also warned you not to spread Croatian ultranationalist propaganda, and yet you did. I also told you that I would delete the section if you did not provide any evidence outside of blatantly biased Croatian sources. In the same warning by Sadko, he literally mentions how you were insulting him on multiple other occassions, and others have alredy been called out for your behaviour by not just the aforementioned user. When we added in proper sources to that subject, you merely said "Well Serbian Orthodox Church is not a heccin reliable source!!!!!!" Now tell me who will more authentically interpret the words of an Orthodox saint - the church to which he belonged, or a bunch of papist, franciscan pseudohistorians who are obviously conspiring against him and making out to be an "evil archvillain that spread 'le Velikosrpska propagada'"? In short, you are a huge hypocrite that has no self-awareness of his actions, you frequently object with logic that would automatically dismiss your own claims, and you have a holier-than-thou attitude on top of all of that. Yes, it was wrong to insult you, but you are obviously editing with anti-Orthodox rhetoric in mind, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to edit Orthodox pages to begin with. Stick to your croatian pages, like Luka Modrich or something. Leave the aforementioned pages to us. vault (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just... am without words, thanks for providing another great example how Eastern European/Balkan topics are an WP:OWN nationalist battleground (at least were more in the past but fortunately admins blocked and/or banned most of such editors), and the amount of pressure neutral editors have to experience and endure simply because of not being of a specific nationality. In case of their block or ban, sincerely fear further backlash against me in one way or another, but am without any other option, I cannot and won't tolerate anymore personal attacks and vandalic reverting.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you still hide under "neutrality" despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for still trying to lie.

This has nothing to do with "Eastern European/Balkan" topics, I couldn't care less about them. You are deliberately and baselessly attacking an Orthodox saint, did you seriously think I would just turn a blind eye to your blatant anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox rhetoric. You even check my edits and went to revert them purely out of spite, such as the aforementioned Boris I of Bulgaria case. YOU are the one who is making this a national/ethnic problem, not me, and then pretending that you didn't cause the problem - absolutely abhorrent and revolting vault (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time. Thanks for providing another example how constructive editing using reliable sources is perceived as "attacking", and the Orthodox bishop isn't a saint, far from it, neither being a saint gives anyone a free pass. Only people who claim he's a saint is local Serbian church (which lacks sourced confirmation). I didn't check your edits, that and many other articles on early Bulgars/Bulgarian history are on my watchlist, and your edit was reverted by another experienced editor as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

i have dropped a CTOP notice on their talk page, but the diffs outlined here as well as their response directly above me is unambiguous evidence that they are here to push a certain POV & attack anyone who disagrees, and not to improve the encyclopedia... if this isn't worthy of sanction then i don't know what is ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. He should be banned from editing pages relating to Orthodoxy since his Croatian background is in the way of politically neutral editing, as evident. His only counter-arguments to all this was that it was "uncommon" for a Bulgarian to be doing so, but it seems like he forgets that "there is no Jew or Greek." If you attack an Orthodox saint, you attack the Orthodox collective regardless of one's ethnic origin. Which is what he's doing, what he's been warned for and what he will continue to do lest he be stopped. vault (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Eimaivault, the editor Sawyer777 was referring to you, and dropped the notice at your talk page, not mine. Agreeing with them means you agree to be sanctioned. The continued personal attacks and baseless aspersions against me aren't helping your case. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Funny how editor in question donated a smoking gun for them to be blocked for xenophobic background aspersions. Borgenland (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

i'm not going to mince my words: i think you, Eimaivault, should be indefinitely blocked for nationalist POV-pushing, personal attacks, aspersions, and disruption. i eagerly await attention from admins to this thread. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

support indef block 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

PagePerfecter

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.

---

Preious ANI The editor has resumed their (presumably) AI text additions marked as minor edits example a few days after the last week long block has expired, the user appears to not be communicating at all with 0 edits to user talk or talk space, last time @Black Kite: said they presumed the next block would be indef. As it appears the user is either unwilling or unable to communicate and is adding what is presumed to be AI/LLM text to BLPs can someone do the honours of indeffing them until they start commincating. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just for future reference, I think we can consider AI use confirmed based on their last edit [4], in which they accidentally copied and pasted too much of the text and included part of ChatGPT's next question asking whether it ought to provide more detail. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the typical AI sensation of having lukewarm maple syrup poured down the back of your neck while you read. On the one hand, on the other hand, platitudes. Narky Blert (talk) 19:28, 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.

Users removing content

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) and
FaIsegod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The users is removing verified content in Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with reliable sources without reason. Nowhere does it say that you have to wait for an exclusive source to verify the attendance numbers at the tour places. Vazafirst (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Both sources provide estimates of attendance, not definitive counts of attendance. Normally, we would wait for the box office reports—either via Billboard or Pollstar, which are well-regarded, reliable third-party sources for this information, made beyond preliminary reports of estimates (which are generally not reported in tour date tables). Not to mention, user was notified in October 2024 of YouTube's notability as an inline citation, and as WP:YOUTUBE states: Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. I also think opening an AN/I at this juncture, when the reporting user never came to my talk page, the other user's talk page, or the talk page of the page in question to form some kind of other means of dispute resolution—which is suggested above. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Could we see some diffs/edits here so we know what you folks are arguing about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour. Vazafirst (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: 1275648427 (addition), 1275698921 (removal) (admittedly, summary could have been better—for that I do apologise), 1275699694 (re-addition/revert), 1275700924 (removal). Not once were I or Faisegod approached asking us to explain the removal (a.k.a. dispute resolution); instead, an AN/I report was made. |livelikemusic]] (TALK!) 17:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying those links. However, this looks like a content dispute/edit war over references, this should be discussed on the article talk page or WP:RSN (or even WP:ANEW), not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 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.

Isjadd773 & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Socks tossed in the dryer. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 14 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. An IP address reported some inappropriate edits made by @Isjadd773: on my talk page, so I took the initiative to look at both those edits and his user page. Isjadd773 has been blocked three times, by administrators Daniel Case and Ponyo, for edits related to singer Chris Brown, and a quick look at his contributions reveals the rationale behind these actions. Despite the previous blocks, the user continues to attempt to mischaracterize Brown's ex-girlfriend as an OnlyFans porn actress and inflate Brown's sales figures. Additionally, he also continues to remove important information regarding Chris Brown's domestic violence cases and other well-documented controversies surrounding his personal life, along with the reported fact that he has fathered multiple children with several women. Given this behavior, I believe a permanent ban from editing the Chris Brown page is warranted under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.It's treeggax (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC) I would also like to mention that the IP address that reported this situation to my talk page has been harassing other editors to weigh in on the matter and has been blocked as a result.It's treeggax (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC) When reporting incidents of this nature, it's wise to maintain neutrality in order to not associated with socks who have previously used the same rhetoric for the so called problematic edits. But given that the user above is a sock of the blocked Italian IP who has actually has been harassing me and another admin in relation to these issue, I wouldn't expect them to maintain neutrality. They are also a sock of indefinitely blocked user Giubbotto non ortodosso. Despite this obvious sock I've responded below in point form to the issues: - "Despite the previous blocks, the user continues to attempt to mischaracterize Brown's ex-girlfriend as an OnlyFans porn actress" The wording in question used was OnlyFans content creator, not pornographic actress. It was supported by a secondary source (Complex) which is still present in the body of the article. It's subjective whether the individual should be categorized as an OnlyFans content creator in the lead. Currently it is not in the lead of the article. Per the edit history of the article, it can be seen that the editor who took issue with these edits was NoOneElseLovEe who also happens to be a sock of Giubbotto non ortodosso and It's treeggax and other Italian IPs, sharing the same location. - "And inflate Brown's sales figures" The "inflations" were also supported by secondary sources. They were not an unsourced additions. Granted it did become a content dispute, due to editors believing that the sales figures reported by secondary sources were inflated. This issue was discussed at length on the talk and I even start a discussion about it on the dispute resolution noticeboard to help resolve the issue. Nevertheless the issue remained unsolved and as a result the "uninflated" sales figure which I did not prefer was kept in the article and I did not contest it ever since. - "Additionally, he also continues to remove important information regarding Chris Brown's domestic violence cases and other well-documented controversies surrounding his personal life" - All relevant information regarding Brown's domestic violence cases as well as the controversies surrounding this personal life have been kept in the article. Interviews about his own legal issues are not appropriate for a legal issues section per WP:NOTADIARY. The information should be concise and focus on allegations, charges, verdicts, etc. Similarly trivial information about relationships is not relevant for the majority of users per WP:NOTADIARY. Again these are edits that the user above claims are problematic were also deemed problematic by Italy IPs who are socks of Giubbotto non ortodosso and their other blocked socks such as DollysOnMyMind and NoOneElseLovEe. - "along with the reported fact that he has fathered multiple children with several women." The information about the number of children he has was kept in the article as its a fact. The excerpt about the children being fathered with multiple women was removed. It's debatable whether this information should be kept. I personally find it trivial as explained in my edit summary per WP:NOTADIARY. Similar to the edit above, Giubbotto non ortodosso and their other blocked socks such as DollysOnMyMind and NoOneElseLovEe have also previously taken issue with the same edits. In this whole smoke and mirrors charade by t's treeggax recently started the following discussion 1 about the removal of information of polyamory. Comically, a few days prior the following Italian Special:Contributions/5.90.57.170, which whom t's treeggax has never interacted with started the exact same discussion 2 about the removal the removal of information of polyamory on the talk page of the user with whom I had a previous content dispute 3 with about inflated sales. Special:Contributions/5.90.57.170 also shares the same geolcation as the blocked Italian IP above and Giubbotto non ortodosso and all their blocked socks and IPs. So to conclude t's treeggax = Giubbotto non ortodosso. Isjadd773 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Your argument overlooks an important point: the user you're assuming I am is a devoted fan of Chris Brown, who tends to present an overly positive and uncritical perspective in the articles. In contrast, my intention in this discussion is to adopt a more critical stance. Your response fails to address the primary concern regarding your edits: they appear to completely overlook a neutral perspective on the convicted domestic abuser and polygamist Chris Brown. It's treeggax (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC) It's treeggax, this is quite a polished complaint to ANI from a two week old account. Have you been editing other Wikipedia projects? I also don't see that Brown has been married according to our article so please strike your comment about being a "polygamist". Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC) @Liz:The article does not mention this fact because Isjadd773 has made significant efforts to conceal it. However, various sources, including the Daily Post (Nigeria), have reported on his status as a polygamist. Just to let you know, I have primarily concentrated on editing the Wikivoyage platform, but I am now shifting my focus to Wikipedia, particularly in the area of legal issues concerning controversial figures such as Sean Combs, R. Kelly, and Chris Brown. I've noticed that fans of these artists often edit their pages in a manner akin to a public relations team. It's treeggax (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC) There has never been any content in that article referring to Brown as a polygamist and the source you mentioned above was never present in the article, much less removed from it. Isjadd773 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict) You have never edited Wikivoyage, at least not as this account. I've indeffed the user for disruption and a probable sock, either Giubbotto non ortodosso or someone else. Probably need to get a CU to confirm because if they are Giubbotto non ortodosso, they should also be globally locked. BTW, I noticed Drinking a l00t an even newer account who seems to be trailing behind treeggax making tiny edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 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.

The IP from France needs to be partially blocked

Dubbed at the "IP from France" (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP from France) This user blatantly reverts other user's edits without discussion and re-adds edits that they think is right. Their main mistake is that if two people of the same name acted in a film (one with a Wikipedia page and one without), they will falsely add the film's name to the person with the Wikipedia's page name.

They falsely added two films that Senthil was not a part of here. That was a different person named Master Senthil.

Several times at Nadigai, the IP repeatedly removes all mentions of Rajendra Prasad (actor) and Jeewan Kumaranatunga although both are in the film (full film on YouTube if you have Google Account [5]). Google Translate can easily translate the credits and show you of their existence in the film and they actually appear in the film if you watch the first ~20 minutes of the film. (Sri Lankan actors in the film were previously supported by this iffy source [6])

The user even removed @Srivin:'s edit at Rajendra Prasad filmography [7], although Srivin gave a reason for his edit [8]. The user additionally removed two films from Ali filmography although one has some sort of a source [9] [10] (I gave the timestamp that he came in the film here [11]). Now you might be wondering, why this information isn't sourced, well us editors of Indian origin are editing primarily in the language that we know, and well I haven't checked Gangvaa credits for Ali, but he is in the film [12]. We are scrambling left and right for reliable sources that we will add the second we find it, and I know that @Kailash29792: can support me on this. It is irksome to have your edits reverted multiple times. See the pages I listed under the proposal section.

Evidence that the IP edited the page

1. There is a film (on a Telugu actor's page most likely) that isn't in italics
2. The word début is on the film.

Sadly the IP stopped doing either of these two which makes spotting harder.

Proposal

The IP from Île-de-France (don't intend to dox, but for just geo-locate blocking purposes [13]) should not be allowed to edit the following pages:

• Nadigai
• Rajendra Prasad filmography
• Senthil filmography
• Ali filmography
• Jeewan Kumaranatunga

Without a doubt, the IP will be back to edit one or more of the five pages listed above, so we should ideally stop them in action.

Well, you might be wondering which IP range is this editor on. Well, its simple, check one of these pages. This is an example of what this user's IP might be close to [14]. I wish I could find the latest IP that this editor edit, so I can verify all of this IP's edits and undo all of the false ones. I know that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, but this user is from what it seems adding every unknown 80s films to Telugu actor Wikipedia pages from some unknown database.

Pinging all concerned editors that can help. @Archer1234: (from the first noticeboard link above) @Ravensfire: (from the Indian cinema taskforce [15]). At the Indian cinema taskforce, Kataariveera supported my claims.

In short, this IP makes me feel like my time here is ultimately wasted as they are undoing my edits and not responding on their talk pages (for at least one of the IP addresses, I went to their talk page but by then they were not active). DareshMohan (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: Ali is indeed credited in Gangvaa (thank god the credits are in English [16]). What is boggling to me is that France isn't even listed as a place where Telugu people are significantly present (see Telugu diaspora and [17]), then if this user is somehow French maybe I can excuse their edits. DareshMohan (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

IP accounts can be "spoofed", DareshMohan, so that they aren't accurate for determing the location of the IP editor. We have one LTA who is always editing from IPs that geolocate to South Korea or Japan and I'm 100% sure they are not based in those countries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What? Telugu people can live in France! France is a civilised, decent, modern country, except for the fact that some of them eat horse.—S Marshall T/C 01:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Latest IP is 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:F52B:57D2:BE16:F582 [18]. IP edited Senthil filmography. DareshMohan (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I support DareshMohan and feel this user must be dealt with. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked User:2A02:842A:1BF:1901:F52B:57D2:BE16:F582 but they are likely to jump to a different IP address. Maybe we can get some help from an admin who deals with range blocks if that is appropriate here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The /64 range has been blocked several times, the last in June 2024 for six months. If this person resumes after 31 hours, I think a long block on the /64 is warranted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, rsjaffe, I've been an admin for 8+ years and I still don't "get" range blocks. I'm worried about shutting down Wikipedia access for neighboring states/countries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're using Twinkle to block, just tick 'Block the /64 instead'. With IPv6 addresses a /64 range is virtually always the same user, so no need to be concerned about destroying the Tri-State Area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I'm going to take your word then that it is safe to range block up to /64 unless I hear otherwise. Thanks for the advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Only on IPv6 addresses, but no problem! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Matter of fact, I never block less than a /64 on an IPv6 address. That's equivalent to the block of a single IPv4 address. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The latest IP is User:2A02:842A:1BF:1901:D9F1:A5:EDD1:D16E. DareshMohan (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The latest IP is 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:D9F1:A5:EDD1:D16E. Due to repeated attempts, it is best that this editor does not edit Taraka Ramudu. DareshMohan (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Went to rangeblock the /64 and noticed this range has been blocked before, for exactly the same behavior, the last for six months that expired in December. Blocked for a year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Abebenjoe reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

This user just told me on my talk page to "leave my edits alone" and "you know less than me" re:CBHT-DT. Wikipedia is built on collaboration and this user is insistent on "owning" their edits. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Why yes I did, because @Mvcg66b3r keeps reverting and editing my articles that I'm the main editor on in local Canadian TV stations that they don't have specialized knowledge on. They have have been vandalizing the articles I edit. – Abebenjoe (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal, I was editing in good faith. I warned this user once on their talk page for attacking me and I would do so again if this keeps up. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You are a vandal. You edits are not in good faith. Abebenjoe (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

And you know that they don't have this knowledge for a fact, mmm? Come to that, how do we know for a fact that YOU have this knowledge, beyond your naked word? Regarding your claim that you're the "main editor" on these articles, I just took a look at the CBHT-DT Mvcg66b3r referenced above, where they have over twice as many edits as you, starting nearly three years before you did. Ravenswing 06:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed a lovely gem on @Abebenjoe's talk page that seems to be exhibiting ownership of the articles in question. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

... beyond the "Hello, never revert or edit my work"? Ravenswing 06:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

that was the one in question... Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r continously makes edits to my citation format and articles that I have have a specialist knowledge of. They do not have a specialist knowledge in the field of Canadian local TV stations. I do. For the past year, they have made reverts and edits of properly formatted edits and citations. – Abebenjoe (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just drop it @Abebenjoe. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Abebenjoe, you are not a main editor on any article, and the fact you claim to have specialist knowledge doesn't give you any additional privileges on those articles, or any others. You do not own content, and you absolutely do not get to tell any other editor never revert or edit my work. Your work can and will be edited by any other editor, which you agreed to when you clicked the 'Publish changes' button, regardless of those other editors' qualifications or lack thereof. Given your clear ownership attitude exhibited with that diff, and here, consider this a once and final warning regarding claiming ownership of articles. Furthermore, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which Mvcg66b3r's edits do not fall under - and accusing another editor of vandalism when they are editing in good faith can be considered a personal attack. Don't do that again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The actual disagreement around content and format should be taken to the talk page of the individual article or to the Wikiproject: Television talk page if it extends over a collection of articles and/or an RFC. Can we step back from the warnings and invocations of authority and start a talk discussion somewhere on the actual content dispute? Wellington Bay (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

10 hours later, nothing is started (noting for the records) I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Ky01654

• Ky01654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really can’t tell what’s going on with this editor. They are non responsive to many warnings and notices on their talkpage. The latest is unexplained blanking of a draft several folks have worked on. AGF, they may not be aware of the messages sent their way trying to get them on track with community norms? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted their blanking and posted a notice on their User talk page. I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for? At this point, we might have to see how they respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

They've actually never used a talk page of any kind, so I'm going to p-block them from main and draftspace and see if that works. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

IP 64's slow edit-warring and unresponsiveness

• 2601:5C0:4201:16B0::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above /64 has been removing the word "singer" from the ledes of several voice actor articles - specifically Miharu Hanai (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miharu_Hanai&action=history), Hitomi Sekine (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitomi_Sekine&action=history), and Misato Matsuoka (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misato_Matsuoka&action=history) - even after being reverted on the grounds that MOS:CONTEXTBIO should allow that word to be used in the lede, with their edits having no edit summary whatsoever.

While this seems to be a content dispute, the main issue is that even after my first warning and another warning for IDHT, they have engaged in slow-motion edit warring (as I warned here) and have been unresponsive to my requests that WP:BRD requires these changes be discussed instead of reverting, despite being warned that communication is required to edit Wikipedia. After I issued a final warning at User talk:2601:5C0:4201:16B0:4805:D9E5:C397:C22F asking them to go to talk to discuss per BRD, they reverted anyway without edit summary/discussing.

Since almost every edit from the 64 is mobile, this may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Therefore even if the edits were made in good faith, given their unresponsiveness and the fact this is about to reach 3RR (if not in spirit), a block should be issued on the 64 in order to help the editor respond to concerns. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked from mainspace with a link to this discussion in the block log, hopefully they'll find their way here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Tvtonightokc

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

I normally would not bring a user to ANI to resolve a topical dispute, but given that Tvtonightokc has never made a substantive comment on their user talk page and has not posted on anyone's user talk since May 2021, I unfortunately have no choice. Communication is required, and I feel this last-resort venue is the only place I can get it.

Tvtonightokc is an editor whose specialty is American television topics. I mostly encounter his TV stations work, but in general his writing has the same problem: I find it to be given to long tangents, undue weight, and jargon concerns. (To demonstrate this, look at KWTV-DT and then at KFOR-TV.) I am not the only one who has had this complaint: as an example, a talk page comment by a non-topic-area user on KOCB last year led to a substantial rewrite that reduced the readable prose size by 56.6%. I have raised this matter twice without any reply, in July 2021 and February 2022, and unfortunately nothing has changed. I just completed an overhaul of WDAF-TV which reduced its readable prose size by 40% and doubled the reference count, and that is kind of par for the course with the pages I work on where he was the majority author.

What brings me here is a comment that, for most users, I'd leave on their talk page: insertion of unsubstantiated-without-more-sourcing material into KTUL (a recently approved Good Article). Unfortunately, given Tvtonightokc's record of non-response to talk page messages including my own, I doubt my words will be heeded. I could see him as a productive editor if he were more cognizant of his style issues, as he usually leaves some reasonable references in articles he works on, but I regrettably have no choice but to bring this discussion to ANI in hopes that it becomes just that: a discussion, not a mere message in a bottle left to wash up on an ignored shore. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sammi Brie, I just want to be clear here on the purpose of this complaint, is it to draw Tvtonightokc to ANI where you can have a discussion about this problematic editing? Because it doesn't sound like you are seeking sanctions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz For now, yes. Their track record of not engaging with talk page discussions means I have to go to some lengths to get a response to this or any other issue. While their writing style frustrates me to no end (and it still goes on or is added to other pages), that's not the matter at hand. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm coming from the perspective of someone who has been heavily involved with projects and rewrites by Sammi Brie, in particular the sludge cleanups. While I have had many differences with other editors in the past, in every case, there was some dialogue undertaken in some way. TVtonightOKC's lack of responsiveness—if not outright ghosting towards people's concerns—has been a problem, and that he is not even acknowledging or commenting on something as legitimately serious as an ANI is very telling.

Like Sammi said, communication is required. It's one thing to be cleaning up article after article filled with needless sludge, cruft and unencyclopedic terms or words like "ironically" and "intellectual unit" in a topic field that was previously considered a backwater. It's another when an editor largely responsible for much of these problems in the topic field is seemingly unwilling to listen to constructive criticism and feedback. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Could I suggest a p-block from article space, with a link to this ANI discussion, to be lifted as soon as they respond? I've seen it done before with other unresponsive editors, and it's extremely effective. JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie They've responded with an explanation on their talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time since I started editing on Wikipedia in 2005 that I’ve been suspended from editing for any cause (including justifiable reasons cited under Wikipedia’s blocking policy; in fact, I’ve often addressed others’ infractions such as vandalism through edit reverts, and stylistic issues of edits made by other users by making corrections where necessary/plausible). I don’t receive many notifications about editing issues, and the issues with responding to other users are tied generally to 1) not checking talk page notifications very often (most notifications in the last few years deal with routine community updates and bot notices for things like orphaned images, consensus on article deletions, or fixable issues like article links that direct to disambiguation pages and CS1 errors), and 2) concerns about discussions turning into beefs that lead to similar or worse consequences for my account, particularly through no fault of my own. (I try to avoid edit warring as much as possible, and the only instances where I’ve tried to undo others’ changes of my edits due to disagreements, it never reached the point of a violation.) Unlike what Sami and Nathan perceived, this is not “ghosting”. Time and lack of notable activity does play a factor in keeping up with the talk page, and I usually focus on the editing process. TVTonightOKC (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tvtonightokc, sorry for the delay in responding. Today was unexpectedly busy for me personally.

I understand the balance between being comprehensive and also relying on citable information. In our field, it is becoming harder to manage that balance because there is less reporting on the local TV industry than there was even 5 or 10 years ago, let alone 25. In a field where local TV news viewership is declining and most media (and thus media reporting) is national in character, local newscasts can go on and live without being noticed by anyone that can be cited. This causes issues when writing about television to Good Article or DYK standards that generally demand a higher density of references. (To wit: when I worked on KQCW-DT, there was some material I wished I could keep and cite but was unable to do so.) This is the issue I hit with the KTUL edits in question, actually; there is no reliable source that can tell me what newscasts they air alone and what is merged with Oklahoma City, including the existing source in the article.

That said, being comprehensive does not mean loading a page up with tangential facts and excessive details that have little to do with the narrative at hand. When I work on one of your pages, it is a lot of this kind of material that tends to need clearing out. KWTV-DT, which I use as the "control" article when I explain your style to other editors, has lots of examples: "now owned by" for radio stations sold off decades ago (that have their own articles), weekend morning CBS newscast clearing, and material that is a bit of a detour from the overall topic. If you are not a subject specialist in TV stations, it can be a tough read. I appreciate that sometimes longtime editors, especially from the mid-2000s, have the most trouble keeping up with evolving encyclopedic quality standards. And I appreciate that, once that excessive material is pared back, there is often good material in there.

I would not have gone to ANI with virtually any other user, but it is not just me who has gone ignored at your talk page. In 2023, an editor asked your opinion on an article of theirs; there was no response. You also received substantive comments beyond mine on your talk page in 2022 (Special:Diff/1096718975) and 2021 (Special:Diff/1060310149) that never got addressed with replies. In fact, it is rather unusual for an editor to be active for 19 years and only have three edits (until this week) to their own talk page. I don't mind that an editor may focus on edits, but at some point, this encyclopedia is a collaborative (and therefore communication-based) project, and constructive criticism deserves a response. After the two prior attempts to discuss writing with you, when I had a matter that required your attention, I felt compelled to come to ANI as a last resort to ensure you participated in the conversation.

In that spirit, I'd like to collaborate with you, improve your pages, and provide sourcing. I may be frustrated with your writing style at times, but I am also open to helping you improve it. Feel free to send me an email or find me on WP:DISCORD. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

From User talk:Beeblebrox ([19]), by @Tvtonightokc

"As far as the communication issue goes, how do I go about addressing the issues with the three editors in particular who have problems with my writing style? Up until Sammi, Nathan and Mvcg66b3r began raising it in 2021, according to the archived messages, there wasn’t much issue with how I write articles (particularly in relation to those I’ve overhauled). I’m a bit more technical-minded writer when editing articles, hence why they come off “dense” as Sammi described in the 2022 message; however, I sometimes struggle to find appropriate wording for conveying information in paragraphs/sentences.

The time I started backing off editing local station articles was in February 2022, when my last station article overhauls (for Little Rock stations) were not only reverted within hours of posting, after a few weeks working on them, but a talk post to Sammi’s page by Mvcg66b3r was pinged to my notifications in relation with the opening statement, “He's at it again.” Neither of the three editors had made contact regarding my edits since 2022 (something Sammi personally acknowledged with her attempted contacts in the ANI), the prose issues they’ve long cited don’t fit the criteria for unproductive editing that would adequately necessitate such a block (even though it wasn’t the basis), and the reasoning for the ANI was based on assumptions as to why I rarely respond to communications with other users without proper context.

I’ve had issues (mainly with family) with being held to others’ standards, when they are standards I know I would have trouble meeting, and not being listened to when I express those reservations to the point where the person turns it into an argument that becomes unconstructive and personal. I’m also not very good at expressing myself or being social in general. It’s also difficult for me to be motivated to do certain things when it feels like those contributions are under-appreciated. I’ve improved my editing style from the overly basic level I used when I started to one that would seem more fitting of an encyclopedia, but I don’t know how to balance my style with the users’ suggestions." JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 21:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out how to reply to this, so excuse the delay. I appreciate that not every editor (or person, of course) is a social butterfly and that this type of engagement can be difficult. In hindsight, my frustration with the process and lack of engagement in prior attempts, which led me to go to ANI first, made me jump a step and maybe bring this up at the user talk page again, but I felt doing so would not result in any reply.

But I think editors can change and want to reiterate to @Tvtonightokc that I want to work with them, provide constructive criticism, and help them feel more confident about their editing. My email and Discord offers still stand, and they are genuine. I see the passion for the topic area, only buried beneath a proclivity to dense prose.

I also have to say that "He's at it again" from Mvcg66b3r was not a very good way to bring it to my attention. In my experience, while he has done a lot of really worthy cleanup work, Mvcg has struggled to read the room at times and occasionally takes things I say too far. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandal/toll/sock back again

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.

---

Regular readers of this page will know of the vandal toll sock who stalks my edits from time to time, leaving insulting edit summaries. The new variant this morning is Crucial Christian Crew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If the usual blocking action and redaction of the edit summaries could be taken, I'd be extremely grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Pickersgill-Cunliffe - much obliged - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 15 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.

Sock-puppetry

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.

---

Hey, need checkusers help, i see some suspicious activities associated with this user -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesusisGreat7, The edits seems to be copyrighted and incidents of Sockpuppetry have been noticed! Christthesaviour (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:SPI. WP:COPYVIO explains how to handle copyright violations. --Yamla (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, you are required to notify the user before reporting them here (although, for that matter, not at SPI), and ideally provide diffs to show concrete evidence of the issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Christthesaviour created a SPI for JesusisGreat7, bur erred in its creation so that Christthesaviour is identified as a sock puppet of JesusisGreat7!!! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JesusisGreat7. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

the account associated to be a sockpuppet of is User:Whatif222 Christthesaviour (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Cleared up at SPI and JesusisGreat now notified of the SPI. Part of the evidence is that User:Whatif222 was indefinitely blocked on 30 November 2024 and User:JesusisGreat7 started editing on the same date. so the issue is block evasion. David notMD (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wrong User:Whatif222 as per the block details was blocked on 25 November 2024, 5 days before the Edits started by the User:JesusisGreat7 Christthesaviour (talk) 13:50, 15 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:DragonofBatley - editing restrictions

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:DragonofBatley is currently operating under editing restrictions.[20] This edit, [21], of yesterday, breached those restrictions, and follows on from two earlier breaches.[22],[23] For wider context, in my judgement DragonofBatley has not participated in the clean-up exercise in a meaningful and systematic way. They have announced that they are leaving (twice), and their contributions around these announcements have been sporadic, and have also contained errors. More positively, in relation to the clean-up itself, solid progress is being made by a small group of editors who are familiar with the issues. I have notified DragonofBatley of this ANI referral. KJP1 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we're probably at the stage where we're going to have to bring in blocks. He's been given a lot of leeway—and copious advice—around the actual meaning of his restrictions and that he was not to edit anything outside those restrictions, but he keeps breaching them. I think we're now at the point where we have to say 'enough is enough'. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

And, sadly, even when editing within his restriction (ie editing an article he initially created), Dragon is not demonstrating that he able to edit competently: in this edit he gives us text like: For instance, in the 1901 census. The area had a housing occupancy of 212 but by the time of the 1951 census. The area had a housing occupancy of 430. and This pub was closed in 2023 after plans for a 90 bedroom care home was approved with a cinema was approved. In both cases we can see what he is trying to say, but he has not managed to write well enough to be acceptable for the encyclopedia. This suggests that other editors will always have to be on the lookout for his editing and clean up after him to protect our precious encyclopedia. Very disappointing. PamD 11:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow just wow. So i made a choice to actually improve Shire Oak and Sketchley but again I'm incompetent. I can't seem to do anything right on here. No matter what. You know what fine. I'm seeing no way through this and I didn't ask for restrictions. They were unfairly placed on me and editors decided I should do a mass five year worth of clean up over six months. Removing all my abilities to be an editor and contributer. You (Wikipedia) did that, not me. Your happy to bully someone with autism and learning difficulties. It's disgusting and I will not be bullied by anyone. You can claim it was not bullying but it is. Removing my editing and contributing. I didn't ask for this arrangement. I would have been brought here even if I didn't make the initial referral. It's unfair that I have to be subject to a mass cleanup of all my articles from day one over six months. And I have made contributions that I can see @KJP1 decided to not say. To multiple stations on the Cromford and High Peak Railway and some suburbs and areas. But I quit cause I lost my cat and a family member just yesterday. So I'm now being further bullied. And those breaches that were claimed were to link the stations and districts. Nothing more but I dunno. Clearly happy to block me cause I can see some have wanted that for sometime but i cannot win. I try to improve but not enough. Try to contribute but may as well not. I cant win either way on here. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

They were not "unfairly" placed on you. You have created a series of deeply problematic articles that other people are trying to clear up. There is a consensus from the community that this was the path that involved you in the clean up process. After all, why should others have to sort out your mess? As you broke it, the very least you can do is try and fix it. If you're not able to fix it, then you should not be editing here. The problems that PamD has posted do not show you have sufficient ability or competence to do even the most basic writing. No, this isn't bullying, so stop playing the victim card: you are putting more and more work onto other people - and they want to be able to get on with their own stuff, not have to clear up the rubbish you are leaving behind. The restrictions were simple enough for you to follow, but you've breached them three times in the last 2 and a half weeks and haven't involved yourself enough in the clean up process. Enough is enough. I'm ready to make a solid proposal to end this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the previous (very, very long) ANI discussion -- which you opened yourself, come to that. But having just read it, here's my takeaway from all of this: you knew you were restricted from making any articlespace edits except in cleaning up the messes you yourself made. The "choice" you made was to do so anyway. Many editors are on the spectrum. Almost all of us have had tragedies and losses in our lives. And we are all expected, all the same, without exception, to edit within a basic degree of competency, to keep from lashing out at fellow editors, and to follow the rules here. If you cannot be trusted to do that, if you're already reneging on the restrictions placed upon you less than three weeks ago, then it's time for sterner remedies. Twenty thousand edits and five years in, it's far past the time where "I try to improve" cuts it. Ravenswing 12:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: User:DragonofBatley is blocked

For breaching their editing restrictions three times, for not involving themselves in the clean-up process as required and for showing insufficient competence in basic editing, DragonofBatley is indefinitely blocked. They can appeal their restrictions in six months. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support: per my comments above. More than a dozen editors were sucked into the maelstrom of the prior ANI. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 12:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, sadly: Dragon gets it right in his second sentence above. He has not demonstrated enough care or competence for his editing to be a nett asset to the encyclopedia, despite his passion for it. PamD 12:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sorry to say, DragonofBatley is a significant net negative to the project at this time. A future request to be reinstated would be much more likely to be successful if DragonofBatley shows a significant, non-trivial, problem-free edit history on another project. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I am sorry that the efforts of a number of editors were not enough to achieve another outcome. KJP1 (talk) 13:36, 15 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.

Lajoswinkler continuing uncivil behavior

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.

---

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

Hello ANI admins. I'd like to get you aware of Lajoswinkler, a user who makes personal attacks, has a hateful tone, puts unnecessary bold text, makes moves without consensus, ruins Wikipedia's collaborative nature, accuses others without evidence, and is just not worth taking seriously anymore. Like, go through their edit history. Lots of uncivil comments and unwanted actions in just less than 200 edits. If they continue this behavior, a block might be worthy. Cullen and Drmies are already familiar with this disruptive behavior, but minutes ago Lajoswinkler's behavior got worse with this and this. Blocks are likely going to be warranted.35.136.190.243 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, they are blocked! Admins, could you please close this thread? There is no use in replying anymore, because the situation is resolved. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would have been better to provide some evidence of the user's misconduct, but a rather cursory investigation was sufficient for me to indef the user. They're generally obnoxious and when challenged, double-down. Incapable of editing in a collaborative environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 15 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.

Death threats

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/w/index.php?title=User_talk:103.204.132.116&diff=prev&oldid=1275191091

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:103.204.132.116&diff=prev&oldid=1275190416

110.224.88.150 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean... it's aggressive, and sounds like a threat of some sort...  Tewdar  17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be enough of a threat to warrant a block. It is caste warrior nonsense. Maybe we'll hear from the editor who made it when I inform them that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

//If you are angry with a vanniar, you can directly fight the vanniar in your village or town. I warn you that if you leave it and look for unnecessary work on Wikipedia, you will be in big trouble// This means that unknown user is writing hatefully on wikipedia about Vanniyar caste, that's why I said if you don't like Vanniyar caste, fight them directly. Don't leave it and use Wikipedia as a puppet.. I don't know where I used death threats in this. The only aim of that anonymous user is to write falsely and meanly about vanniyar caste.. check his contributions first.. Thank u.--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath: Doubling down on the threat is incredibly foolish. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The you will be in big trouble.. part sounds a bit comically threatening, I suppose. Perhaps you meant to say something else?  Tewdar  18:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not fooling anyone, they have written a fake story on Vanniyar Wikipedia page to fool us all. I also know all wikipedia rules, I am one of the tamil wikipedia admin. Thank u --Gowtham Sampath (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

//The you will be in big trouble.//I told you that if you write such false stories, you will be banned by Wikipedia admin..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath: The warning you left the IP is inappropriate. Don't issue such a warning again or you may find yourself blocked. You may know the "rules" at ta.wiki, but you clearly are unfamiliar with the policies here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, this sort of thing is not very nice. Perhaps next time though, you should say 'you will be blocked by one of our awesome admins if you keep doing this' instead of 'you will be in big trouble' and talking about fighting, hmm?  Tewdar  19:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

ok I will learn and understand the principles of English Wikipedia. thank u--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 19:08, 15 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.

Longterm disruptive editing by editor, sans communication

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

User's edits continue to be disruptive with addition of unsourced content, original research and violations of variation in citation methods, the manual of style and date formats, as well as refusal to discuss anything on their talk page, despite multiple warnings (dating back to August 2024) and even an attempt to discuss with them over their edits.

Warnings / discussion attempt

• Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material
• Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style)
• Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour
• Vandalism on Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour
• →Sourced items (attempt to try and open discussion concerning their edits, which then continued post-discussion open)
• Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material

Edits (via diffs)

• 1250975405 (addition of unsourced information/original research)
• 1262311276 (addition of unsourced materials)
• 1263690169 (MOS:OVERLINK)
• 1271202087 (MOS:NUM, WP:CITEVAR and some slight original research)
• 1275385692 (disruptive editing)
• 1275779205 ((WP:CITEVAR/additional of preliminary data prior to final reportings)
• 1275783086 (re-addition of 1275779205, carrying over the same problems)
• 1275783300 (further re-addition of 1275779205, carrying over the same problems; while also siding with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
• 1275947858 (addition of unsourced information/original research)
• 1275958182 (re-addition of unsourced information/original research)
• 1275958249 (addition of unsourced information/original research)

The fact of the matter if the user continues to edit against their warnings and refuses to discussion on their talk page when an open discussion is made. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Cosmicsight

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:Cosmicsight keeps spamming links to (their blog?) jameswebbdiscovery.com across multiply articles as ELs or CITESPAM or both diff diff diff. Five sockpuppets spamming the same site were blocked by User:zzuuzz so this seems to be a WP:EVADE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, but WP:AIV is better for obvious sock puppetry that involves obvious spamming. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 16 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.

Wwew345t conduct at AfDs

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.

---

(Disclosure, I was the one to implement the current mainspace block, and I have closed a number of the reality TV discussions over time. Aside from Involved, I think it's time for a larger discussion.)

The article block has helped with the disruptive recreations, and there are times where their vote has been correct before their AfD participation has devolved into bludgeoning, but Wwew345t's conduct has not improved and this is exhausting.

• Crystal clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (2nd nomination), especially this comment.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 24 (endorsed) shows that their opinion on reality shows is not aligned with community consensus, which was a continued issue on their Talk and at User_talk:C.Fred#M.

Since it appears consensus has changed with regard to supercenterians and therefore their interaction is less problematic there, I only propose a topic ban from reality TV actors and their related AfD discussions in hope that their editing elsewhere gives them the skills to eventually edit productively with regard to reality TV. Open too to other ideas. Note, I'm going to provide the AfD notice after so I have a direct link. Star Mississippi 18:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I made an accusation in the wrong page which is why i have removed that the only thing im guilty of is not knowing where to report concerns about users which i now know i would like to point out my argument for keeping John Cochran (Survivor contestant) is based on the sourcing not the accusation I made and I am sorry for any inconvenience I will take my concerns about the nominater to the proper channels Wwew345t (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out when abother editor informed me that afds were not a appropriate place to voice concerns about editors i promptly apoligzed and removed the accusation from my afd vote the misconception started when i looked up what i should do if i have concerns about an editor and i have fixed said mistake the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (2nd nomination), is not so much of a bludgeoning but more like a debate on whether or not articles recapping a tv episode count as a primary or a secondary sourceWwew345t (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wwew345t, if you have concerns about an editor's behavior, you file a case at WP:ANI like what Star Mississippi did right here. It's important to have a a) policy-based argument and b) providence evidence in the form of "diffs"/edits that demonstrate the behavior that you believe violates Wikipedia guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You only removed it after this ANI was filed, similar to you removing your posts after @Cullen328 flagged the bludgeoning. Please do not continue to misrepresent your actions. Star Mississippi 00:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Is that my afd vote? No its not its something i added to the talk page after i read incorrectly that you were suppoed to bring concerns about edits to the pages talk page I'm not sure why you keep blowing all my actions out of proportion with intense hostility you've reported me for bludgeoning by posting a example of a very weak case of me "casting aspersions" on a afd that im not bludgeoning. Especially since the other editor on the afd also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Collins_(2nd_nomination)#c-George_Ho-20250127023400-Bearian-20250127015700 did the exact same thing i did which you have neglected to mention (on a side note i dont actually think you are biased i am just demonstrating how easy it can be to wrongfully assume someone is doing something they are not Wwew345t (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You can see i was called out for misuseing my afd vote by another editor in which i promptly apoligzed and added a comment about a policy based reason why i think the page should be kept that happened before yoh reported me to ani again i ask that you see the rest of the afd and consider how every other comment after that is a debate on policy. Wwew345t (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It is quite remarkable that Wwew345t, an editor reported here to ANI for bludgeoning discussions, would choose to bludgeon this very ANI discussion. What's up with that? Cullen328 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

apologies that is not my intention I just have a habit of thinking about something to say after I made a point Wwew345t (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I have removed all my redundant comments to save space i apologize Wwew345t (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• After the user posted this separate thread, which I reverted, I indeffed the user for disruptive editing. Enough is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  No kidding. That's a spectacular list of complaints on the user's talk page against barely enough edits to get extended status. Given his propensity there for insulting admins, I'd wager that losing TPA is next in line. Ravenswing 02:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Even more spectacular when you bear in mind that they tend to make several talk page posts in sequence. -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 16 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 LTA of WP:WIKINGER on Barranca, Lima and its talk page

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.

---

• WP:WIKINGER
• Barranca, Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I notice starting around August 31 of last year. Bunch of IPs are adding sections entitle "History Behind The Stench" with the text that go like this: A characteristic feature of Barranci is the enormous stench of the air in the city, often compared to rotting meat, garbage dumps and manure. The city fell in 2017. Due to the migration of residents caused by the unbearable stench. It is estimated that in the 90s the population fluctuated around 170 thousand. Data from 2017 indicate the effects of mass migration of people co-created with the demographic decline. At that time, the number of 63,275 inhabitants was given. For this reason, this year is symbolically referred to as the year of the fall or destruction of Barranca.

Which is absolutely false. Later those IPs supported this claim with this sources, which is failed verification.

I later found out that they are socks of WP:WIKINGER which self admitted (Here). Almost all of the IPs are from Poland other than the proxies. The IPs are keep on coming back as soon as the protection on this page expires and I just keep on reverting it back as soon as they added it. I don't know what to do. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Miminity, one thing you could do is provide some IP addresses that concern you. That's a start. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank for responding @Liz: Here it is:

These are the one on the main page

• 2a02:a316:e1f3:cc00:dd8f:e249:57bb:b35b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.132.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.112.0.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.113.14.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.172.42.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Mastkodont (talk · contribs)
• 94.254.170.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.165.156.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.161.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.64.93.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are the one in the talk page

• 77.242.98.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.247.23.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 5.173.204.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.113.2.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.165.156.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.161.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.224.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the most recent one) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Barranca, Lima and Talk:Barranca, Lima have been semi-protected. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:09, 15 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:Historyk.ok personal attack and 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.

---

Historyk.ok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user violated WP:NPA WP:CIV. We had a disagreement over a content in the article, which I wanted to respectfully resolve. However, this user in his edit to the article responded to me with an anti-Ukrainian and antisemitic caricature in the form of emojis "🇺🇦✡️🤥". This is a personal attack on ethnic/national basis and isn't a respectful response. StephanSnow (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Calm down, it was a joke, it wasn't meant to offend you, and I don't understand on what basis you claim that the answer was anti-Ukrainian and anti-Semitic, it was just emoticons and was not supposed to have anti-Ukrainian and anti-Semitic motives Historyk.ok (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

So "it's just a prank, bro"? Sorry, that's not going to fly. As for what basis - it's blatant why that particular sequence of emoticons was selected, claiming ignorance is not a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so rude, I didn't know he would take it that way and I didn't mean to offend him in any way because of his nationality. Historyk.ok (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the StephanSnow and The Bushranger that it is unambiguous what that string of emoticons was meant to represent. Further compounded by the fact it wasn't a real edit, rather just the addition of whitespace to leave a comment. If you have a legitimate disagreement with the content of an article, take it to the article's talk page without the emoticons. I have reverted your latest edit as I can't see any legitimate reason why you removed the total combatants from the infobox. The totals given are the sums of the stated Cossack, Militia, Poland-Lithuania and Crimean Khanate strength figures. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Historyk.ok, the thing about jokes is that they need to be funny, and what you did was offensive and disgusting instead. I looked over User talk: Historyk.ok and saw quite a few warnings. Here is another warning for you: If you pull another obnoxious stunt like that, the consequences for you will not be funny. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I assure you that this will not happen again Historyk.ok (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Historyk.ok, this isn't 4chan or Elon's Twitter. You can't just make poor taste jokes based on someone's identity and expect people to be chill with it. We have rules. If you don't follow them, you're out. End of story. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 00:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

yes, it's true that this is the first time I have had such a situation Historyk.ok (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It amuses me how most of the Wikipedians commenting on this submission failed to notice that this has nothing to do with personal or national attacks, he simply sent emoticons that we can interpret differently. Nihil novi nisi (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, you and Historyk.ok are both easily amused. Perhaps you share more than a sense of humor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You can easily check with Checkuser that he and I are completely different people if you don't believe it. Nihil novi nisi (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no other way to interpret "you are a lying Jewish Ukranian", especially when it is the only purpose of the edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Not what Bbb was saying, but you should WP:DROPTHESTICK so this section can be closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nihil novi nisi: sure, they can be interpreted differently... How do you interpret them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The author (historyk) is just being clever because nowhere is it written in the rules that emoticons can't be used, he just sends a message with a hidden message in it, you can see that other Wikipedians have read it, but we still can't punish him for not challenging users but giving emoticons. It would be useful to discuss this matter at WP:NPA and add this to the rules. Nihil novi nisi (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Some things don't need to be written in the rules. We learn that they are wrong when we are growing up. There is nothing clever about racist insults. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Let us not exaggerate that this is some kind of racism. Just more of an insult to someone or some group on ethnic grounds. But still, it should be added to the rules that such hidden messages are not allowed either. Nihil novi nisi (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Racism .. may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different ethnic background. is the second sentence of the article. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

An insult to someone or some group on ethnic grounds sounds exactly like racism to me. How do you think it doesn't apply? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but perhaps this thread might be closed before more editors get in trouble? Historyk.ok has at least apologized and promised not to do this again. NewBorders (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Historyk.ok: I get that emoticons can be ambiguous to many people, but if its not meant to mean "Ukrainian, Jewish, Liar" what is it meant to mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

(Historyk.ok deleted a comment here, which explains my reply below). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

For the record, this was the removed comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. Just stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

this discussion has ended a long time ago but I don't know why it's still going on and I wrote it in pure irony Historyk.ok (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion isn't over just because you say it is. Either this is a competence is required issue - i.e. you are not competent enough to understand your actions - or it's deliberate obstinance trying to pretend you don't know what you did wrong or why your actions are offensive. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologized and understood my mistakes, what do you want next? Historyk.ok (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Focus on content, not the person please. Get some rest. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean?, I guess the discussion has fulfilled its purpose Historyk.ok (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to help you because you did apologize, but - bluntly - you are currently digging your own hole. I'll try to spell it out for you.

What other users are trying to get you to do, in more or less gentle ways, is not just to apologize in the abstract and vaguely point at some undefined "mistake" that you made, but for you to acknowledge exactly what you did and promise that that will not happen again. They are looking for recognition that the string of emojis you typed carried a specific meaning that was offensive, that you knew it was offensive (as confirmed by your reference to "irony" above), and that it should never have happened on Wikipedia. Following that, an actual apology, specifically for that personal attack on someone's ethnicity, and a promise not to do anything like this ever again on this website, will be the final expected steps. NewBorders (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Historyk.ok: That doesn't really answer what you meant... I didn't ask how it could be interpreted, I asked what you meant... So for example out of distance from reality, sense of humor or unconventional thinking which did you mean? And what was the combined meaning in succinct terms? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Historyk.ok, do not delete comments made by others on this page, and do not delete your comments if someone else has replied to them. That violates policy (Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#How to refactor). Doing this (Special:Diff/1275923290) again could result in sanctions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a link to a how-to guide. How about the guideline WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS instead? George Ho (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

yes, sorry I didn't know, I was already informed about it earlier. Also that the response from Phil Bridger Ahri Boy was quite unpleasant :( Historyk.ok (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to say that when someone disagrees with your suggestion or changes, please do not bludgeon. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing, I just think that you're responding in a rather rude way, but can we go back to the discussion on which this is based? Historyk.ok (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This nonsense has gone on too long. I have blocked Historyk.ok for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 16 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:Notatall00 again

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) continuing to make WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA comments after being leniently sanctioned by admins in a previous ANI. See [24] and [25]. Borgenland (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

adding this (now deleted) personal attack to the report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

and this one too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Would be nice if he gets indef blocked 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. I had trouble finding edits from today that weren't personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Also please yank off TPA per [26]. Borgenland (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This should be enough to take away their tpa too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

TPA yoinked for that charming retort. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Some editors go out of their way to make these decisions easy. Funny how this editor saw themselves as "neutral". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 16 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:MaranoFan

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.

---

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

I opened my watchlist to see that several articles–List of Spotify streaming records, List of most-followed Instagram accounts, Disease (Lady Gaga song), Queer (film), and Inside Out 2– have been edited by User:MaranoFan in the span of 15 minutes, who never edited any of these pages before (except for the foremost, editing it once in 2019). All of these articles are within my most edited pages in the same sequence of the timing of their edits. I was confused and uncomfortable so I went to their talk page asking why would they stalk my most edited pages, adding that they "probably meant no harm", explaining my discomfort, and asking them to stop. They replied saying "you do not own pages" and that these are "bad faith accusations" and "unreasonable requests". I explained to them that this is not a WP:OWN case but a WP:STALKING one. They said they were not stalking me and that "this is the end of this conversation", adding in their edit summary, "Please do not bother me again". They removed the discussion from their talk page in the same minute. Please evaluate the conduct of this user and if this is a case of WP:STALKING and WP:INCIVILITY or not. Medxvo (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you complain in the first instance? Are any of MF's edits inappropriate? I glanced at a few, and they looked innocuous.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the edits, I don't appreciate being stalked so I went to their talk page to know their intention. I have been interacting with MaranoFan in a positive way for months and I was disappointed by the uncivil response. Medxvo (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I would forget about it. I don't see the need for administrator intervention, but I'll leave the thread open in case MF responds or someone else has a different view from mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think accusing someone of stalking without good evidence is a personal attack. Why do you think @MaranoFan is targeting you? (I'll note that I am slightly involved with MaranoFan, as we've reviewed each others GAs/FAs.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 16 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.

Comment about withholding donations on an AFD

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 was taking part in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland L. Bragg deletion discussion and @Diane Richer: seems to make a comment implying she will stop donating to the Wikimedia Foundation if this page is not deleted. I don't know if this rises to WP:NLT or WP:INTIM but it certainly seems like an WP:ATA. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Meh. 99 out of 100 times when people say they're not going to donate any more, they don't donate in the first place. On another track, that AfD appears to be heading for the highest number of WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep !votes in history. Yours is one of the few that actually bothers to make a nod to policy. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  See also WP:FLOUNCE. As an aside, could renaming the base after Roland L. (WWII PFC) rather Braxton (Confederate general) be considered - dare I say it - woke? Narky Blert (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Though one could argue that RL Bragg is being used to restore the old name instead of the "Liberty" name; as we've seen this week though, who knows what goes through the heads of these people? Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

To add, the threat of withholding a donation which, like Black Kite says, is likely coming from someone who doesn't donate, is not uncommon. I've seen this idle threat dozens of times and it generally causes amusement among fellow editors who actually donate many hours of their time rather than the desired effect of them getting their way. So, it doesn't seem legal or an effective effort at intimidation as it usually has the effect of them losing all credibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There's even an essay for that: WP:GONNADONATE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the essay to Wikipedia: Not gonna donate and edited it extensively. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 16 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:Ndiamar

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.

---

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

Editor was warring with multiple editors at Brisbane (history) about their inclusion of an unsubstantiated population claim. I warned them to stop doing so. They decided it was worth prodding William Fraser (a previous DYK article), and removed several passages of information from that article with edit summaries of false claims (see that article's talk page). They canvassed on my talk page for other editors to partake... in... the... prod...?

Several warnings have been given to the user. Seasider53 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I came across this editor following their efforts to add "the storming of capital hill" to an Australian page - 1996 Parliament House riot without citations, despite repeated promptings.[27] It also appears to be a pattern of behaviour across other WP pages - see also Charles III [28] and suggests an unwillingness to work collaboratively on the project. Nickm57 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll note for the record that Seasider53 brought this to my attention on my talk. I think this looks like an obvious case of disruptive retaliatory editing, and I've asked the user about it on their talk. I noted that Seasider53 was welcome to post here, as I was am about to log off - no worries if another admin wants to deal with it based on the previous behaviour, or if we decide to wait until they respond. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ndiamar has gotten three User talk page messages over the past few hours and hasn't edited for the past 10 hours so I'd like to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's fair - let's give them a chance to explain themselves, and get their head around how things work here. But to be clear, I think that rocking up at a random article that was created by an editor you're in conflict with, PRODding it, stripping it of content and sources, and then logging out, is not cool. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. What I wanted to see is whether or not the editor received the message being sent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)They started spamming templates all over Seasider53's talk page possibly in an attempt to recruit people who want the page deleted into this discussion. (Special:Diff/1275421655)ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked @Ndiamar from User Talk for 31 hours for disruptive user talk page editing (undoing @Seasider53's edits on their own page) and canvassing other users (see edits on @Seasider53's) page. It looks like they're getting disruptive on mainspace as well, but I'll leave that for now as the urgent situation is the user talk pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You might consider changing that to a block just from User talk:Seasider53 as I'm not sure whether or not this block allows them to respond on their own User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll reset it to one page. I'm pretty sure a user-talk partial block does not prevent editing their own user talk page, but not 100% sure. I'll get an answer later, but for now, just block the one user's talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We just did a test on test.wikipedia.org. user-talk partial blocks do not block the person from editing their own talk page. I'll leave the block limited to User talk:Seasider53 for now, but can extend it to all user talk space if needed, while preserving Ndiamar's ability to edit their own talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for testing that out, rsjaffe. I wasn't sure about it either. I haven't seen many namespace blocks where the namespace is User talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae was a great help in the test. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a repost,

It doesn't matter now anyway I've been blocked.

I have been one of the most prominent editors in regard to Queensland city/town articles; fixing up multiple lead openings on Cairns, Townsville, and Brisbane. Rockhampton, Mackay, and Bundaberg were done practically by me alone, of which I brought them into B-Class. I spent hours doing them.

My edit on Brisbane opening was in regard to the 'South Bank and its extensive parklands is the most visited attraction in Australia, with over 14 million visitors every year."

Note that it was referenced, what Seasider objected to was the claim "most visited attraction". However, I explained to Seasider that I have looked at the numbers of every major landmark in Australia and none come close to the visitor numbers of South Bank. Hence why I thought it was grossly unfair for him to undo my edit. He sent me the above message out of the blue. Please stop. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Which I assumed was trolling, because he gave no prior objection as to why he was undoing my edit he only gave an answer after he sent that. And I believed it constituted an attack on my character as an editor, as well as unaligned with Wikipedia regulations.

I don't apologise for my edits to William Fraser (architect. Did I know he created that article? Yes, I was giving him the same respect he was giving me by showing his hypocrisy. Half of what was on that page was poorly referenced, or with broken links, or made hyperbole and uncited claims.

Also take into account the numerous other editors who have also claimed to have been "targeted" by Seasider53, and or have claimed poor treatment from him. I have no such claims made about me, I am not disruptive, I take consideration to others edits and the valuable efforts they make toward Wikipedia.

I however, will not be bullied. If he wants to try to intimidate me I will give him the exact same treatment right back.

Regards, Ndiamar (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Addendum; I am saddened that I was blocked without being given a chance to first reply here. I do have responsibilities that means I can be away from my computer for many hours or days at a time. But I feel despite the high level of work I offer to Wikipedia, this block has left me rather defeated. I don't care what your decision is at this point, you've made it clear you'd rather support a bully who openly has other editors claiming the same treatment from him as I've recieved. Just ban me then, you win.--Ndiamar (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ndiamar: if you were inactive then the only block to ever affect you was the one for Seasider53's talk page. There were no reason for you to be posting there anymore so the blocked should not be something to care about. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand your frustration @Ndiamar but you're displaying conduct here that is entirely out of alignment with collaborative editing, which is needed for Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOR to understand why your research on attendance is not appropriate and cannot be used in an encyclopedia article. While an essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is applicable here as what you, or I or any other editor knows is irrelevant if it hasn't been reported on in reliable sources. How are you going to change your editing now that you know that? Star Mississippi 18:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't apologise for my edits to William Fraser (architect. Did I know he created that article? Yes, I was giving him the same respect he was giving me by showing his hypocrisy.

So, that's an admission you were being WP:POINTy and disruptive just to lash out at someone else. You weren't being bullied, you were having a disagreement with another editor. And if you keep this up, you're going to wind up blocked from the wiki entirely. Instead of throwing a tantrum, take a walk, calm down, and come back when you're ready to collaborate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

An attack on someone's character is against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

You also claim my edits on William Fraser architect were disruptive.

You might want to retract that statement, as my edits there were reasonable. That is a personal attack. Ndiamar (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

None of my edits on William Fraser (architect) could be construed as vandalism of which YOU are implying. That is character assassination and a personal attack against me. Ndiamar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the Fraser talk page yet? Seasider53 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Calling your edits disruptive (they were) is not a personal attack. @Ndiamar this is a final warning or I'm going to expand your block. Star Mississippi 14:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point out your behavior in editing articles. You directly admitted you made an edit just to spite another editor, regardless of its validity. That is the essence of WP:DISRUPT. I suggest you stop digging a hole. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

No you said my edits were 'disruptive' which is akin to calling it vandalism. When my edits were directly in relation to Seasider53 edits. Are you going to also condemn his edits as "disruptive" then? Or are you friends with him and trying to team up to bully me? Ndiamar (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Imagine if I said to you, Hand that Feeds you, your edits are vandalism, you are a vandal. That is an attack on someones character. Ndiamar (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You also deny I haven't been bullied by Seasider despite him admitting he sent abusive messages to me. Ndiamar (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have INDEFFed Ndiamar. They're welcome to make a compelling unblock but this ceased to be productive if it ever was. Star Mississippi 14:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Character attack

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:HandThatFeeds has made accusations of character attack. Wikipedia:No personal attacks Claiming my edits to page William Fraser (architect) were disruptive when they were done accordingly to the same pretext as User:Seasider53. --Ndiamar (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a retaliatory filing for § User:Ndiamar, and I suggest it would be best to focus on that one discussion rather than to open another one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:57, 15 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.

User:Bwshen may well be an expert, but insists citations aren't always needed - also COI issues

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.

---

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

For instance, saying " fyi. If the information is undoubtedly common knowledge to your intended readers, you usually don’t need to provide a citation. This was a significant news event in the United States.]" They had a long discussion with me asking for a zoom, etc.over this issue. An example is [29] They seem to be an expert in their field but don't understand original research, eg User:Abecedare reverted them on Chaos theory here with the edit summary "none of the cited sources support link to "chaos theory", which is not synonymous with chaos". See also their discussion with User:William M. Connolley almost two years ago.[30] They have a history of self-citing and have now been given a COI warning. They've posted a list of their publications here If needed I will try to find time to show the issue of self-citing. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Per your request, references have been provided. Discussions are included on talk pages. Thanks! Bowen (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

fyi.

Regarding [277], the discussions are provided below the Table, where citations are included. Additionally, as per your request, the references have been reused in the discussions.

Regarding [278], please also refer to the following paper for further information. (They cited our work, indicating that they agree with what was discussed.)

Can the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings Shift a Tornado into Texas—Without Chaos? by Yoshitaka Saiki and James A. Yorke

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/5/821

Further discussions are more than welcome. Bowen (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

btw, here are my original responses:

===

It’s 8:40 a.m. in California. I’m working on it. If readers follow the news, they should be aware of the information. Bowen (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three references have been added. fyi. If the information is undoubtedly common knowledge to your intended readers, you usually don’t need to provide a citation. This was a significant news event in the United States.]

=== Bowen (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If readers follow the news... this is not a valid excuse for failing to or refusing to provide a reference. For example, here in the United Kingdom almost all of us know that the labour party won the July 2024 election because it was all over the news but we'd still expect it to be referenced. Recent events fall out of memory after a few years. I couldn't remember who was elected to my constituency in 2015 without checking the Wikipedia article. Additionally, Wikipedia has a global audience; something that was widely reported in the United States may not have been elsewhere in the world. In general, when your contributions are challenged by another editor you should provide a reliable source or it may be removed at any time. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As mentioned earlier, two references were included in the original version, and three additional references were added per request. More importantly, discussions were moved to the talk page (while references remain). Additionally, in one of the provided examples, citations were already included in the Table, and discussions have been added below the Table. Bowen (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Simply put, additional references were provided upon request. The primary concern is that the editor did not believe the discussion (or what happened) suggests the butterfly effect. Bowen (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to respond to one of the original statements: “They had a lengthy discussion with me, requesting a Zoom meeting and other relevant information to address this issue.”

First, at midnight in California, a request was made to add additional references (to support the discussions about the impact of Emanuel’s blog). By 9 AM in California, three news articles were provided as references.

Secondly, I noticed that the requester (the Editor) may not fully comprehend butterfly effects and chaos theory. I aimed to provide some background information to help them understand what happened indicates butterfly effects. To facilitate discussions, I checked if it would be appropriate to have a virtual meeting. Unfortunately, the Editor did not prefer this option. Therefore, I accepted suggestions to discuss the matter via talk pages. In the meantime, discussions have already moved to the talk pages.

I’ve already posted related discussions under the DeepSeek article, replacing “butterfly” with “significant” as shown below: DeepSeek#Impacts

For further discussions, I’d like to suggest the following:

(1) Please feel free to make suggestions on the above.

(2) Please leave your comments regarding whether the events indicate a butterfly effect.

Thanks very much! -Bowen Bowen (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to add a brief note to facilitate discussions.

(a) Following Emanuel’s blog post and the recent release of DeepSeek models, several events unfolded. To ensure the accuracy of the information presented, sources reporting on these phenomena, such as stock price fluctuations, are provided.

(b) Initially, the fourth paragraph interpreted these phenomena as a butterfly effect and the original essay was posted under Chaos Theory. However, acknowledging the concerns raised, the related discussions were moved to talk pages.

(c) Since the main argument revolves around the interpretation of these phenomena, the phrase “butterfly effect” has been replaced with “significant effect.” The revised version is now posted in the subsection titled “Impacts” under the DeepSeek article.

If you find any inaccuracies in the provided references, please feel free to leave comments here. Bowen (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the above 21:26, 11 Feb post tests at 100% ChatGPT created. BusterD (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD, please test this comment by Bowen, which reads:

Please provide specific details about any issues in the current version of the post so that we can make it easier to improve its quality, readability, and other aspects. Your collaboration is greatly appreciated.

It sounds very robot-y to me. BarntToust 02:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Let’s concentrate on enhancing the quality of the content that is posted (or removed). Bowen (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Whatever else, please stop asking editors to contact you by Zoom, email or other offsite methods over content disputes on en.wikipedia. If you're unwilling or unable to collaborate on the English Wikipedia itself then it isn't the place for you. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide specific details about any issues in the current version of the post so that we can make it easier to improve its quality, readability, and other aspects. Your collaboration is greatly appreciated. Bowen (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What post? What I saw is at the time I commented your had replied above about Zoom but with no indication you understood that suggestion was not a good idea. And you had started threads on two different editor talk pages [31] [32] where you suggested email as an alternative. In fact your reply to me above still doesn't make it clear you understand you should not generally be suggesting Zoom, email or other offsite manners to resolve content disputes. And you also have the weird use of plural in reference to yourself here. Further I noticed this yesterday but didn't bother to comment: You said "Therefore, I accepted suggestions to discuss the matter via talk pages. In the meantime, discussions have already moved to the talk pages." As far as I can tell, you've never touched a single article talk page in your entire time here. You have been discussing stuff on editor talk pages but while this isn't necessarily wrong, it's generally undesirable for discussions concerning the content of specific article, especially discussions about active content disputes. Even more when your posting more or less the same thing to multiple editor talk pages (per the earlier diffs). So perhaps not surprising both editors told you to stop doing this in some fashion [33] [34]. I'd note an article talk page discussion [35] had been started before you tried to approach an editor directly [36] (mistakenly on their user page instead of their talk but I can accept the redirect might have caused confusion). So you could have simply joined that existing article talk page discussion instead of trying to start all these user page discussions. I appreciate the boundary between editor talk and article talk page discussions isn't always clear and you were approached on your talk page but in light of the various factors I mentioned and also that the other editors are experienced, an article talk page discussion is clearly the right approach IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A revised version of the content was indeed posted on my talk page, created by others. (My talk page has very few items, so it shouldn’t be hard to find the revised version.) However, I’ve noticed that some people may not have the time to read the revised content and understand it. Despite feeling discouraged, I must acknowledge the reality. Bowen (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bwshen Can you confirm that you have read and understand WP:SYNTH? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. We’ve provided the original article by Emanuel and the news articles without any additional interpretations. We simply stated that the blog and models played a significant role in triggering such an event (e.g., price drops). Please review our discussions to confirm this point. Bowen (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We've provided the original article We simply stated Please review our discussions Is there a reason you're referring to yourself in the plural here? Wikipedia accounts are required to be used by one person and one person only. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

In single-author journal articles, “we” can be used. Thanks. Bowen (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a journal article. Is more than one person using the Bwshen account? Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand now. From now on, I’ll use “I” to refer to myself in our future discussions. Please let me know your thoughts or concerns about the version of my post. I appreciate your input very much. Bowen (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I need to clarify something specific: I am the sole individual who uses this account, and I regularly monitor its activities. Bowen (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Bowen, your use of English is very strange here, if you are the only person using this account, you shouldn't have to "monitor" your own edits because you, supposedly, are the only one editing. For example, I don't monitor my own edits because I'm the one editing with it, I don't monitor myself. I don't think English is your native language and many of your responses sound like they have been written by AI, not a person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. I’m not sure why writing style here is important. The primary reason I added that sentence was to emphasize that it’s less likely for others to use my account. (Could you please review the entire discussion and find anything that is directly relevant to the content of the revised post?) Bowen (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I’ve reviewed the rules. Please read our post. I hope you’ll agree that the report only documented the events that happened without any interpretations. Please let us know your comments on the post. Bowen (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Bwshen, you are using the terms "we" and "our" excessively when referring to your account's edits and actions. This terminology indicates the "Bowen" account is operated by multiple people. As Bushranger pointed out above, you must address this. BarntToust 22:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, in single-author journal articles, the pronoun “we” can be used. I value your questions. Do you have any specific comments or concerns about the (now removed) version of my post? Let’s collaborate to enhance the quality of the content. Bowen (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I am quickly gaining the impression your words are either AI generated or poorly translated.

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, Bwshen, and you are doing well to not operate as if the place is. BarntToust 23:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem if you're using a translator, BTW, but the way you type is idiosyncratic in a way that sounds robotic. BarntToust 23:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I’d appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on the content. Thanks. Bowen (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The community would appreciate it if you were able to recognize Wikipedia as Wikipedia, not a "single-author journal article", and as a place where discourse happens in-house and not in a Zoom meeting or email. BarntToust 23:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Note the WP:SELFCITE process and that yes, you can plagiarize from your own work yourself. Ensure this when adding content. There, I'm discussing the content as you have requested. BarntToust 23:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I’m using “I” to discuss this with you. (Please let me know if this is the official rule on Wikipedia.) Also, could you please provide a specific example to support your statement(s)? Bowen (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBURO. I don't think 'don't use "we" to refer to yourself' is written down in any policy or guideline for many reasons including it's something that so rarely comes up. However it arises naturally from several issues. One is that sharing accounts is forbidden and using "we" causes confusion over that. But the other is that using "we" to refer to yourself as a single person is simply not normal in most English communication. It might sometimes be used in single author journal articles but that's a specific case and even there isn't universal. [37] [38] [39] In fact F. D. C. Willard was used because "we" evidently would have rejected for a single author paper for the journal that author planned to submit it to. Nosism described in limited detail where it might be appropriate. The one which generally applies to journal articles is pluralis modestiae but that doesn't apply to most or all of your comments. There is zero reason why you should be including the reader in your statements. E.g. it's you who wants to "make it easier to improve its quality" of your comments not the reader. The editorial "we" is also discouraged by some style guidelines point blank e.g. [40] Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's focus on the content of the post. Thanks! Bowen (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You may want to focus on the content (and I think you have repeated that about a dozen times) but editors here are more concerned about your behavior and use of AI. You can't control a discussion on ANI no matter how many times you repeat yourself. And you still never answered User:EducatedRedneck's question to you (see above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did I need to use AI tools for this? My initial intention was to document the events that transpired. Bowen (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, since I’m not a native speaker, I would greatly appreciate some assistance with both the content and wording. Thank you very much! Bowen (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, thanks for acknowledging this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Bwshen for a week to stop his disruptive editing in the hopes that he will think about the advice he's been given and come back without posting the same lengthy demands for detailed answers in multiple locations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope he also stops citing himself in articles when he comes back.. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And perhaps they'll stop using LLMs to respond to talk page discussions. BusterD (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And maybe he'll better adhere to the process of conducting on-wiki content disputes on-wiki, and not by Zoom or email. BarntToust 12:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

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 looked through a sample of Bwshen's contributions over the years, and it seems to me that all of them belong to one of three categories: (1) self-citations, (2) edits to articles that do not improve the encyclopedia, and (3) talk-page edits that show no sign of understanding of any issue any other editor has raised with them. (And I agree with BusterD that these seem to be largely if not entirely machine-generated.) The latest exchange on my talk-page and their unblock request are clear examples of the latter. Does anyone see any sign that Bwshen has made any attempt to read any of the policies they've been pointed to, or any comprehension of any substantive point that's been raised? Given their tiresome and time-wasting behavior, I ask that the block be extended to indefinite. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Support indef - I looked at their talk page alone and thought "this Bwshen fellow is a clear cut CIR failure", but I didn't want to start this thread myself, assuming principles of give em' enough rope; upon further thought, I can tell where this editor is going, and it's going down an indef road anyhow. Best to get things over with now. Thanks, JBL. BarntToust 19:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

notice that the text that Bwshen is copy-pasting from the LLM has slanted apostrophes, a possible sign they are using AI to generate their nonsensical replies, as normal human-operated keyboards usually return regular, straight apostrophes. I mean really, no human being would respond with "I don’t believe so" when their literacy in English is questioned. BarntToust 20:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

unless they're on an iPad as I learned the hard way! Star Mississippi 22:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Support indef for total failure to grasp anything about Wikipedia's guidelines, policies or purpose after multiple editors have tried to explain. Their talk page is full of AI slop. They have not shown willingness to learn a thing. Having the block expire in a week just means we'll be back here again in eight days. As the comment above says, let's get it over with now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The failure to get the point together with other policy violations (e.g. WP:SELFCITE) may warrant a longer block, but as far as I'm aware there is no prohibition on the use of LLMs/AI in talk pages, the only policies I've read apply to articles. And I can hardly blame the user if they are using AI; Copilot is built into Edge and Aria is built into Opera, I'm constantly getting popups and tooltips asking if I want an AI tool to help me. English is clearly not their first language and to my mind they have at least been trying to communicate with the rest of the community either with machine translation or an LLM. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And I can hardly blame the user if they are using AI... Well, I can. They weren't just polishing up their English (the motivation for which is understandable, even though it's still bad because it obscures whether they are actually understanding anything). As far as I am concerned, using LLMs as a source in the year 2025 is itself evidence of lacking required competence, or even basic information literacy. And that's what they were doing, appealing to LLMs as evidence that their claims are correct: I consulted two AI LLMs, and they both agreed on the interpretation of the butterfly effects. They replied to a comment saying that a random YouTube video is not a reliable source with a wall of ChatGPT slop. I see no communication attempts, only repetition. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

LLMs can be used in two ways: by people with skills, expertise, and discernment, who can give meaningful prompts and easily judge what parts of responses are valuable, to make their workflow more efficient; and by people who lack those skills, to produce mountains of trash with very little effort and no thought. The second use is not explicitly banned because obviously it is impossible to word such a prohibition to distinguish these cases, but also because the behavior is a violation of WP:DE (and perhaps other guidelines). I am naming the particular kind of disruptive editing; saying "but I don't see 'writing AI-generated slop explicitly listed anywhere'" is pointless bickering for the sake of bickering (in the absence of an affirmative answer to the question in my post). --JBL (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

wp:AIRBUD. No rules say "No AI", but if doing something no rules say nay to causes issues, well shoot. We're here on ANI now. BarntToust 21:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Adam, AI produces slop. It happens to produce decently helpful responses sometimes, but it objectively, often, and relevantly in Bowen's case, produces annoying, disruptive, and tone-deaf slop. This is all Bowen is able to show for his interactions with other editors. NETNEGATIVE. BarntToust 21:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:AGF? I have no doubt that Bowen's actions fail WP:CIR, my argument was and remains that we should assume good faith and not jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion that the use of AI is intentionally disruptive and that it just might be an attempt by someone to communicate with the English-language Wikipedia community where they otherwise would not be able to. I don't think at any point I said Bowen shouldn't be sanctioned, that AI produced high quality content, or that other issues could be mitigated by the user's failure to understand. My issue is the apparent attempt to paint all use of AI as unacceptable. In my opinion, AI is undesirable but does have its legitimate uses. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, AI incidentally produces desirable content, ask everyone who needs a math or science equation solved. BarntToust 22:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't imagine it's intentionally disruptive, and I don't care whether or not it is, so who precisely are you accusing of "jump[ing] to unsubstantiated conclusion[s]"? Maybe, if you have nothing to say about the question "Is this editor editing in a disruptive way, or not?" it would be better not to contribute to a thread about that question. JBL (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

As long as they are focused upon subject under discussion, editors are free to contribute to a discussion on ANI regardless of whether other editors agree with their argument. In fact, they should be encouraged to weigh in in order to hear a variety of viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that asserting AI itself being wrong is an important inherent issue, and differentiating between the use of AI and the abuse of AI is important. AI should be looked at in cases such as these with disruptive editing as if it were the weapon in the context of an assault or murder. It's an important part of the discussion, but it is only the vice with which the subject of our discussion enacted their problematic behavior, which is the only thing we are charging at here. BarntToust 16:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support altough it's not about the LLM or the awkward English. They're being disruptive and show no willingness to change. The why doesn't matter. This is not a path forward. Star Mississippi 22:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Star Mississippi. User:Bwshen may well be an expert at something, but is certainly not at creating a verifiable encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per JBL's analysis. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

We really should make a rule for AI. I think it's noted in various places. but there should be an actual guideline. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to chime in on WP:LLM, but there's been a strong pushback from LLM proponents against making this even a guideline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef - It definitely seems like Bwshen is keywording conversations, which tells me they can't read/write English well enough to contribute here - and that's irrespective of chatbot use. The requests to only contact him via means that would out the person who did so and the disregard for our sourcing requirements and policies on sourcing oneself are also very concerning, but those are all ultimately trumped by their obviously poor command of English, which the chatbot can't mask. Bwshen, I strongly suggest you contribute to a Wikipedia that you can actually read, for your sake. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef Using LLMs as a source for content, not understanding WP:OR, and anodyne AI generated responses to comments. A time sink that is best nipped at the bud. RegentsPark (comment) 16:20, 16 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.

Return to behaviour from K1ngstowngalway1

I’m concerned about the return to problematic editing by User:K1ngstowngalway1, blocked by @Deb: on the 18th, per this previous ANI.

The accompanying issue of leaving no edit summaries has improved but to a still-paltry 21%, if from next to zero. That aside, they have resumed, to quote @DeCausa:, “to introduce tendentious POV edits based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with frequent misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. They WP:OVERLINK, often to concepts which are anachronistic or make a POV connection”. They swamp multiple related articles with similar passages of general material, often lifting passages wholesale from other articles, losing specific focus on the article subject. I think this may be partly of a more-is-better approach but suspect a significant WP:COATRACKING aspect, to advance some broader case.

The current main focus of attention is Alexander Cameron (priest). The summary for this edit baldly states the motivation “Cameron.. being promoted for Catholic sainthood is relevant… because an enormous amount of further research will be needed worldwide to confirm a life of heroic virtue and, far more importantly, to search for possible evidence of willful misconduct...”, clearly not the brief of Wikipedia. This is bolstered by the like of this and this campaigning addition.

Another current example, is here at Mass rock regarding large off-topic sections, with no direct mention of the subject, apparently coatracking supplementary material in pursuit of a wider campaign.

As before, the abundance and extent of edits makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work.

This user will not take on board, from anyone, the problematic nature of their edits, cry persecution, and are evidently determined to carry on as before their block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

My "campaign" involves the quest for the unvarnished historical truth, which I have always thought was the whole purpose of the project. I have edited articles in the past, such as that of convicted murderer and rapist Fr Hans Schmidt (priest), even though he is a subject which makes my own religious faith and it's clergy look very predatory and evil. I have also added information to the article on Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair involving his role in exposing the violations of priestly celibacy, etc., by an 18th-century priest of the Highland District of Scotland. Such scandals are part of Catholic history, too, just as much as the life of those that are revered and I would never act to silence or cancel such stories on any account. Regarding Mass rocks, such secret altars, sometimes indoors and sometimes outdoors, existed on both sides of the Irish Sea, rather than merely in Ireland as often believed. Their locations are important, the stories attached to them in the oral tradition are important, even in cases where they cannot be substantiated or are merely folklore. Folklore is used in every culture to teach life lessons. If someone is deemed worthy by an approved Catholic organization to have their life story publicized and their Canonization as a saint encouraged and prayed for, then it becomes so much more important for the facts of their life to be investigated, firmly established, and set in proper historical context, even by those, like myself, who live an ocean away and do not belong to said organization. Let the chips fall where they may, let the search for the facts of history condemn or exonerate whomever it may. Unfortunately, sometimes pseudohistory, that is allegations rooted in the rewriting of the past to advance an agenda in the present, becomes so pervasive that it becomes official history. When this happens, criticism or the asking of hard questions about its claims are at risk of being silenced. Even in cases such as the official Whig history so harshly criticized, not only by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, but also by Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Celticists like John Lorne Campbell, one sees editors determined not to tolerate even scholarly writings and University Press texts that raise unwelcome questions. But if a historical narrative is strong enough to withstand critical examination, why are unwelcome questions, however carefully referenced and cited from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale history presses, being instantly deleted?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

One problem with your statement is that Wikipedia editors are not an investigatory body. It's not our job to investigate and publicize what we believe are facts but to source everything to mainstream, reliable sources. If you want to do your own original research on potential saints and their lives or promote a cause, I think that content is more suitable to a personal blog than a referenced encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the unvarnished historical truth is absolutely not the whole purpose of the project. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth; Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, to right great wrongs, or to advocate for The Truth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I seek, cite, and use verifiable sources from scholarly journals accessed on JSTOR and elsewhere, but they are being ignored and declared "unreliable" even when the authors are respected historians and scholars. I don't seek to promote sainthood causes but to write accurate biographies of the subjects and hope that others will research, too, and assist, rather than silence a subject that there is already an existing interest in.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe strongly in verifibility.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what this comes down to is that you haven't followed the advice given you previously. If you only did the edit summaries, that would be something. At the moment, you're giving others a reason to block you, and next time this happens, it's likely to be indefinite. So please take it on board, and do so immediately. Deb (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Investigation into recognition of potential sainthood should be left to the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints. It's literally their job. Narky Blert (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not seem to be going well on the "getting it" front with this user, particularly looking at the history of the last 24 hours at Alexander Cameron (priest). See also the talk page, at Talk:Alexander_Cameron_(priest)#Canonisation_cause and Talk:Alexander_Cameron_(priest)#Synthesis. The lengthy post in the former section has me baffled on many aspects but it is difficult to interpret anything other than it including a demonstrably baseless personal attack that I "...on the Catholic Church in Scotland, have often... delete(d) the existing sections on the many recent and similar scandals in Scotland", not that I'm sure what it means. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope it's OK to give a few comments. First off, I should say that I have only edited Alexander Cameron (priest) (which I came across via Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates), so have only had direct experience of K1ngstowngalway1's actions there; I can't comment on other articles. It's clear that they have a passionate interest in the topic, though with a somewhat partial point of view. Unfortunately that seems to lead them to write in a very prolix manner, with a dreadful amount of unnecessary detail, long quotations from sources, and sometimes surprising wikilinks that make the article very unwieldy, and in my opinion far too long.

I've slowly been trying to trim various parts this week, with some success, though K1ngstowngalway1 does then add bits back in. They seem to have a particular fixation on the case for Alexander Cameron's canonisation, and while I don't think any of the editors involved deny (a) that a relatively small group of people in Glasgow have been promoting that case, and (b) that it's reasonable to have a mention of that in the article, albeit that the sourcing is not stellar, K1ngstowngalway1 really does seem very keen to get as much (to my mind undue) detail about this in the article as possible (for example, the recent inclusion of a photo of the prayer card in question as a source), and has not responded in a terribly constructive way on the talk page, which is a pity.

My respectful advice to K1ngstowngalway1 would probably be to voluntarily take a break from editing articles in this area - after all, there are plenty of other places in Wikipedia that need attention from dedicated editors! - to remove some of the obvious tension from the current situation, and in future try a little harder to engage in good faith on the talk pages of articles when there's a difference of opinion with other editors. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

If we’re effectively talking about a voluntary topic ban, as the problem editing has been long term, over a fairly diverse range of articles, this does present a challenge to specify. As they are skating so close to an indef though, it’s a significant concession. Gaeldom, history, politics, religion, broadly construed? Any better way of defining it or anything to be added?

The user has been so resolutely combative, uncooperative and apparently incapable of appreciating what is problematic with their edits and behaviour, and continues to be so as these discussions proceed, I’m not optimistic for a positive response. We can but ask though. @K1ngstowngalway1:? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I do have a passionate interest in this topic and in many others. I also do have a specific writing style, but most people do as well. I tend not to engage in discussions because, believe it or not, I do have a life outside of Wilipedia. The main combat issue, by far, regarding Alexander Cameron has been whether or not the prayer cards regarding his Canonization cause is even allowed to be mentioned in the text. The Knights are also promoting Alice Nutter (alleged witch) for Catholic sainthood as well, as is mentioned in the article text and which has not been similarly resisted. I believe their campaign regarding Alexander Cameron's is a relevant fact and that its mention in both the introduction and the article text are important, whether one identifies as a Catholic or not. Other editors, particularly Mr Lunker, had repeatedly edit warred by deleting it, even after a very reduced mention, whose text was agreed upon in the Talk Page, was added by SunLoungerFrog, it was immediately deleted from the intro as well. I have not as yet attempted to restore it. The efforts of other editors, especially Mr Lunker, have come across less as responsible editorial policing and more like deliberate cyber bullying and trying to silence someone with whom they disagree ideologically, hence my repeated expressions of anger rooted in very deep hurt and frustration, as this has continued for a very long time. As a person with high functioning ASD, I have always found expressing myself clearly to be very difficult, which is also something I continue to work very hard to overcome. I have found, though, that there is also a deliberate effort to find reasons to discredit and negate the credibility and references of even academic historical journals and books as sources, such as the Innes Review all of whose articles carefully footnoted their sources, Oxford University Press books, John Lorne Campbell, Robert Forbes, Thomas Wynne's biography (which I wish had included source citations, as it would have made my life much easier), or even transgender historian Jan Morris' book The Matter of Wales. These references are deleted outright, rather than the text being summarized, which I would be okay with, particularly since learning recently to be aware of not using such lengthy quotes as in the past. Summaries are now being deleted, too. This is a deliberate effort to reduce certain articles, for which I have done considerably research and worked very hard, to the stub level, which suspect will probably be followed by a request to delete them outright. I've noticed recently that this has drawn MattLunker criticism on the Mass rock talkpage, even from other editors with whom I have had much lesser and shorter disagreements with in the past. The definition of "relevance" has been unnecessarily draconian, even information that is directly relevant to the topic, like the subjects immediate ancestry, is removed as "irrelevant". Wh K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

"I've noticed recently that this has drawn MattLunker (sic) criticism on the Mass rock talkpage, even from other editors"? A bold claim about the focus of criticism there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

While I have chosen to not similarly attack MattLunker or try to get him blacklisted over what seems to be our differing beliefs, his own actions and statements have come across as, "The facts are irrelevant. Your sources are irrelevant. I and my allies disagree with you, so we are going to silence you. Even if there are no problems with a source's credibility, we will create a problem. You are helping to stir up interest in subjects we consider opposed to our cause, so we will punish you and blacklist you." Does this project really wish to reward that kind of behavior or allow it to be normalized?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest a read of WP:1AM? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

K1ngstowngalway1, in case it wasn't clear as expressed above, that a specific question was put to you as a potential way forward, I'll restate it in summary: would you agree to a voluntary topic ban on articles regarding Gaeldom, history, politics, religion, broadly construed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe topic bans will provide any solution with this editor. The issues are in plain sight in statements by K1ngstowngalway1 in this thread: My "campaign" involves the quest for the unvarnished historical truth and I tend not to engage in discussions because, believe it or not, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. That's the essence of the problem: misuse of (or lack of) sources to promote "the Truth" (for "unvarnished" read excluding RS secondary source interpretation of primary sources) and refusal to discuss. This is not restricted to a specific article. It's across the board.

Jacobitism is an example. This revert is typical of their behaviour across multiple articles and topics. In it, there is citation of WP:PRIMARY (Aquinas, Magna Carta, Declaration of Arbroath) to support anachronistic/POV conclusions about an 18th century movement which through WP:SYNTH are then speciously cited to a 2010 "coffee table" popular history with wikilinks to concepts that have no bearing other than to support the POV in question (eg this unsourced anachronism: This and certain other Jacobite ideas, such as restoring Scottish devolution instead of centralised government, were staunchly opposed by the Stuarts themselves. The Jacobites remarkable prescience in being over 200 years ahead of their time in advocating any concept remotely connected to "Scottish devolution" is, of course, unsupported but, no matter ... it is the "unvarnished truth".) All the while, they edit copiously without edit summaries and when they are reverted they slow edit war to restore their numerous edits, but without comment or discussion on the talk page because they "do have a life outside of Wikipedia".

This user will be a time sink and will be regularly back at ANI until there's an indef. DeCausa (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban was an attempt at compromise, damage limitation and agreement upon action, having been suggested above, but I couldn't agree more. With the user's statements, there is no reason to believe that the modus will change even if focused on other topics. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Jacobites, whether they were ahead of their time depends on the which area and which thinker. As is stated in the article on the right of revolution and those related to it, the Whig party in 1688 most definitely did not invent the idea that the King is bound by laws and can be removed from power if he violates them. That is a much, much older concept in European thought and appears in everything from Viking Age sagas to the Medieval Scholastics like Aquinas. It was seen in practice over and over again throughout the post-Roman history of Europe. In other words, the concept of the divine right of kings is not something as old as often thought and in that regard, early Jacobites were NOT 200 ahead of their time. Other issues, such as religious freedom, minority language rights in the schools, and more localised government were not only Jacobite concepts at the time, but still are matters of political debate and conflict even today. Hence my resistance to an overly simplistic understanding of how the past has shaped the present world we live in. So, while I am willing to spend time focusing on some other subjects to lower the tension, but even if I were willing to agree to a permanent ban from editing everything even remotely related to those topics, I doubt it would do any good. I think your mind is already made up. Remember, this can just as easily happen to you as well.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

whether they were ahead of their time depends on the which area and which thinker No, it doesn't, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Scottish devolution. Remember that if everybody holds one position and you hold another, a wise man considers that maybe, just perhaps, it's him who is in the wrong and not everybody else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The overturning of the 1707 act of union and the restoration of the separate Scottish Parliament WAS a motivating issue for many Jacobites, despite the Stuart's opposition. Even if one does not wish to call that "devolution", it does involve a more localised government.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's akin to saying that a coot is a duck because they both swim and eat water plants. I'd strongly suggest you consider the first law of holes and stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Right now, reading over this complaint, I don't see enough support here to impose a topic ban, much less an indefinite block unless a patrolling admin wants to go rogue. But while that's my current assessment of the state of this discussion, K1ngstowngalway1, I think you only have so much WP:ROPE here. You have to listen to the comments here and on talk pages and adjust your way of editing or we will be back here and there might be more editors participating who think that your time here on the project is over. I want to stress that this is serious and you need to take feedback on board. I think this is a second chance but a return trip to ANI might not end in a stalemate like this.

And Mutt Lunker, I want you to give K1ngstowngalway1 some space and not look for a reason to return here in a week. No one can edit productively under constant scrutiny and if there are problems that emerge, consider letting another editor bring a case to a noticeboard. This is just my evaluation of this discussion thus far and the tide could turn depending on how long this is open. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

When an editor comes straight out of the traps from a block and makes literally hundreds of often sizeable edits, on numerous articles, over the course of a few days, a significant number of which have the hallmarks of what brought that block upon them, one would not have to actively excavate a reason to return to ANI.

The user tends to edit in fields which are of minority interest and might be regarded as fairly obscure, and thus lacking scrutiny, but it so happens that there is a significant overlap with my own field of interest. Signs of their return to problematic behaviour were popping up from their very release but I held off a full 5 days, in that knowledge, before returning here, in which time I and other editors had attempted repeatedly to engage with them on talk pages with either no response or lengthy tirades, citing ulterior motives rather than engaging with the specifics being highlighted; intial engagement largely being their repeated reversals at two or three articles that myself and other editors had been addressing, rather than the scrutiny by others of their post-block edits.

On occasions when this editor has tackled higher-profile articles, under the scrutiny of a greater number, such as Jacobitism, they have drawn more attention to themself but while they edit in more obscure areas, have effective free rein. Now that I’m familiar with their style, I am regularly encountering, by chance, problem material in my sphere of interest that bears their unmistakeable hallmark and that may have been in place for years.

If I’m being warned off from calling attention to current activity, at these low-profile articles they will just carry on, out of sight of most editors. I hope that others are minded to monitor matters.

There may be no clear consensus as to a course of action but I see nobody who doesn’t regard their behaviour as highly problematic or that believes they have been in any way responsive to those engaging with them. Their ongoing activities are a distinct net drain on resources, let alone what would be required to tackle the many articles blighted by their prodgious efforts over years. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban; I can't see that the user has learned anything from their recent block, and they make no effort to address the problems others have identified with their edits (eg overlinking to anachronistic and unhelpful concepts; reliance on low quality popular history sources and the like; a polemical and tendentious approach that is at odds with current (or even 20th century) academic views on Jacobite related topics, etc). Moreover by repeatedly blanking their talk page they seem to quite deliberately be obscuring evidence that these problems have been noted in the past, over and over again. Svejk74 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A topic ban would be better than nothing - but I still think that this is on tramlines to an indef. @Liz: I think you are being rather unfair to Mutt Lunker. He's simply highlighting a highly disruptive user. I also don't think describing this thread as "stalemate" is accurate. I can't see anyone saying anything positive about K1ngstowngalway1. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I interpreted @SunloungerFrog:’s advice to K1ngstowngalway1 as “a voluntary topic ban” but I wouldn’t wish to speak for them. Are they happy with that as a characterisation of this view, and as a potential solution? My suggestion of restriction was from “Gaeldom, history, politics, religion, broadly construed”.

K1ngstowngalway1 has themself responded to this suggestion with “I am willing to spend time focusing on some other subjects” but interpreting this as a formal acceptance of the imposition of a topic ban would be unwarranted without a more definitive response. @K1ngstowngalway1:, would you accept a topic ban on the specified categories? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I would not.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker a voluntary topic ban was just what I had intended, so you hit the nail on the head. However, I see that this is somewhat moot now. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Well, any voluntary aspect of it would be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If it was somehow unclear before, I’d agree there is now no indication of stalemate. All participants have been strongly critical of K1ngstowngalway1 and all four of those who have discussed a suitable course of action advocate at least a topic ban, voluntary or otherwise, though, from the user’s response, the voluntary element is evidently no longer an option. If there’s any debate, it’s between a topic ban or stronger action, not a topic ban or no action. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a CIR situation with the statement of Edit summaries are still something very new to me and I tend to have a longer learning curve at such new skills.[41], considering this issue of disruptive editing without using edit summaries goes back years, not simply days, weeks or even months, but years. It seems especially egregious that while promising to do better they simply refuse to use the option to require edit summaries before posting. I will admit they have improved their overall number of edit summaries, but still many are insufficient, and or still missing altogether, even on contentious edits. How many more year should we reasonably expect to be patient with this editor? TiggerJay (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

From their talk page, they have admitted prioritising their continued campaign of editing above compliance with these constant concerns regarding edit summaries, knowing they have been unable to set up their preferred device to force a summary (not, as pointed out to them, that that's any excuse for omitting them). They are adding more now but not heeding concerns that many are meaningless. Editing has slowed down but still features drip-fed slow warring, addition of unfocused, peripheral material and weird links. And I'd agree, CIR issues seem evident, including in otherwise harmless matters.

The brazen "I'm sure that edit summaries have likely come up before" highlights the 18-year, 21-thread rejection of engagement on this matter, but that goes for any and all matters (content, neutrality, sourcing...).

Whether it's intentional or due to capabilities, this refusal to engage or comply with people's concerns has gone on far too long and shows no sign of changing. Is there any way that this isn't an unshakable example of WP:NOTHERE's ""Little or no interest in working collaboratively"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

To be honest I think it's going to be hard to address the user's seeming favour for shortbread tin-style Scottish history, but edit summaries and the focus on adding as many links as possible, no matter how anachronistic / confusing / unhelpful, should be easier to fix - if the will was there in the first place, and I'm not sure it is.Svejk74 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this editor and frankly it seems like their goals and methods are not compatible with improving the encyclopedia. They occasionally make useful contributions but unfortunately they seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between critical history, Jacobite atrocity propaganda, and Catholic religious narratives—despite my efforts to explain. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

to clarify I support a topic ban or indef. This editor is not a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there any doubt now of there being “enough support here to impose a topic ban”? All participants have been highly critical of the user, see no prospect of them ever engaging meaningfully or dropping the problematic behaviour and, in discussion of action, all support a topic ban, at least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

By my read, there is effectively no support for a topic ban - because the support is for an indefinite ban. Unless I'm misreading, everone who has mentioned at topic ban has at least made some acknowledgement that this is insufficient to fix the problem and an indef is inevitable. @Mutt Lunker, @Buidhe, @Svejk74, @Tiggerjay @The Bushranger, if we're at "enough is enough", could we get a clear proposal for an indef with formal !votes? My read on the discussion, even just the discussion that happened before Liz's comment, does not at all align with Liz's read that there's no evidence in support of a ban here. I suppose I could get out my rouge but I don't think I'll have to. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

My bad possibly, if not properly carrying out what was suggested above. Should I, or somebody, formally lay out "I propose an indefinite ban of the user and invite responses", or the like? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

That was what I was angling for, yes. But on reflection, reading this thread again, I really do think it's clear and there's no need to keep this thread going when it's already in its third week. No one has had anything more positive to say than "they are using edit summaries more often now". I will indef as a regular admin action in response to this thread. If K1ngstowngalway1 successfully appeals the block and returns to the same behaviour, well, we'll be right back here and can have the formal cban proposal then. -- asilvering (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Certainly I would advocate indef. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure Liz and I are reading the same discussion. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I made my comment 12 days ago and gave my opinion at that time. Of course, that action doesn't stop anyone from having a different opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User: Terra Borealis

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.

---

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

This user has, over a long period, made a number of disruptive edits in relation to First Nations Australians:

• Inserting content to say that Acknowledgement of country is equivalent to Nazi ideology (This occurred several times over several weeks) Second instance Third instance
• Changing wording to imply that First Nations people did not have any ownership over land but just hunted on it

• Making a sourceless addition to imply that aspects of First Nations culture are primitive/Neolithic ideas

I think this user is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather pursuing POV pushing. GraziePrego (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego, I'm struggling to think of a reason not to indefinitely block; I find their talk page comment, "Secondly, it is a gross misrepresentation that I equated traditional Aboriginal beliefs with Nazi ideology. 'Connection to Country' and 'Blut und Boden' do, however, have significant similarities", perplexing. Absent any forthcoming reply here, I will block them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ve indefinitely blocked them now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:10, 18 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.

Threat of doxing

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.

---

By 180.254.224.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - diff here Not sure how credible this is. Adakiko (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 16 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.

Please block IP address: 38.2.22.11

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.

---

Reason: talk page vandalism by 38.2.22.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Woo Fook you liberals that watch your wife's get enjoyed trying to paint this as if he didn't actually grow up in poverty but only "wrote" about it. Remove yourselves. Literally take a sharp and remove your throats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.2.22.11 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)"

"Kitty cat doesn't even have the marbles to respond. Boohoo. 38.2.22.11 (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)"

Explanatory diff: Diff showing the edit by 38.2.22.11

Luamssuk (talk) 14:11, 17 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:106.216.200.155

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.

---

• 106.216.200.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Personal attacks on IndiGo fleet see [42], further in article history. Accusations made without evidence on my talk page and others. See uncivil interactions on talk page. The talk page header makes it clear that the user does not wish to contribute positively to wikipedia. I am trying to revert personal attacks written in the article but I do not have that much free time to monitor the page. By the time I am writing this, further vandalism may have occurred. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

more and more. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• There does not seem to be any further action needed beyond what Chetsford has already done. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 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.

Harrasment by Awshort, Round 2

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 posted this thread which did not lead to any action.

The same user, Awshort, has now begun reverting my edits on an article that they have no history of editing, nor do they have a history of editing any article even remotely related to the subject.

This is clearly harrasment: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

Diff just now.

Again, Awshort has no history of editing the article nor any history of related articles. They made this comment soon after I created a thread in DRN about an unrelated disagreement. The Spreckels talk page comment included the the line "Here from NPOV noticeboard" thereby giving themselves plausible deniability to wikihound me. They have zero user contributions on the NPOV noticeboard, and zero contributions to the article or related topics, which leads me to believe they were actually there from following my user contributions to harass me.

Diffs from first post, pasted below for your convenience: Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:

• 1

• 2

• 3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.

Delectopierre (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This article appeared Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Claus Spreckels: Accusations of slave ownership more than a week ago; Awshort commented on the article talk-page five days ago, indicating that’s how they found the discussion (very plausible). Awshort’s read that your changes do not have consensus on the talk-page also seems correct. You should spend less time trying to make this article say what you want and more time understanding the (very sensible) objections of other editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1175#Wikihounding by Awshort, this discussion thread ended with Awshort listing some problematic edits made by you and reverts or changes they and other editors had done to address some of the problems. You never responded to the list that they posted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Funny, that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You never responded to the list that they posted

They posted content disagreements, that, in each instance, had editors on each side of the discussion. I didn't reply because the list Awshort provided was about content and this board is for behavior. Furthermore, I posted problematic behavior from Awshort on the talk page for the article previously at issue, and they didn't respond.

But what do either of those facts have that have to do with Awshort's harassment? Delectopierre (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Awshort commented on the article talk-page five days ago, indicating that’s how they found the discussion (very plausible)

I find it highly implausible that of their 977 edits, 0 are on NPOVN, and the first time they follow the NPOVN to a thread just happens to be the thread that I'm participating in, very soon after I posted at DRN. For a point of comparison, Awshort has left 53 comments on the BLPN, a board they have stated they follow.

Awshort’s read that your changes do not have consensus on the talk-page also seems correct

The changes they reverted were not changes discussed on the talk page or NPOVN; rather they were changes that occurred during those discussions. In point of fact, I manually reverted them as they were made without consensus. Awshort then reverted my reverts, in a topic area they have zero history of contributing to.

You should spend less time trying to make this article say what you want and more time understanding the (very sensible) objections of other editors.

I have much to say, but this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue. If you'd like me to reply to this part, just let me know.

Delectopierre (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP has the right of it, that's what you should be doing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Also seems worth noting that Awshort self-reverted several minutes before you opened this thread. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious what relevance that has, in your view? I wasn't aware of it as I was posting this thread. Delectopierre (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, if you weren't aware, when you file a complaint at ANI, the behavior of the filing party (that's you) is being scrutinized as well as the editor being complained about (in this case, Awshort). Believe it or not, many editors come to post complaints at ANI when they are actually responsible for more disruptive editing than the editor they are complaining about. We can't take the comments of the filing party as being true and accurate, we need to see evidence and also hear from the other party. We don't rubber-stamp complaints and sanction other editors just because someone asks admins to do so.

So, the fact that Awshort had posted about your editing history and that other editors had to revert your work is just as worthy of consideration as your complaints about Awshort. This is how ANI works and it's also why we advise editors, especially newer editors, not to come to ANI because the outcome can be unpredictable and you can find yourself hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I am well aware of WP:BOOMERANG.

We can't take the comments of the filing party as being true and accurate, we need to see evidence and also hear from the other party.

I am not asking you to take my comments as true and accurate, I have provided evidence.

So, the fact that Awshort had posted about your editing history and that other editors had to revert your work is just as worthy of consideration as your complaints about Awshort.

What does another editor reverting my work prove? There are countless reasons something could be reverted, and I could have posted the same list in reverse -- from my perspective. But again, what would that prove?

Look, I'm not suggesting I'm perfect; far from it. I try to follow the rules to the best of my ability. If there are rules I broke that I need to answer for, then I will do so. That said, when someone harasses me - according to the behavioral policy - I am going to report it. Delectopierre (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, actually my question wasn't about your edits being reverted it was that in the last discussion, which you refer to, the discussion ended when Awshort asked you a question that you never responded to. That was the only point I was making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Again, I didn't reply because -- from my perspective -- Awshort's comment was about content. Was I incorrect in my assessment or in my decision not to reply? If so, would it be helpful to reply here, now? Delectopierre (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspended a content dispute at DRN brought by Delectopierre involving Awshort, because I don't want to try to mediate a content dispute between two editors when one of them also has a conduct dispute with the other editor. This is the second report of harassment at this noticeboard by Delectopierre against Awshort. We appear to be looking at an editor who does not like another editor. If we (the ENWP community) close this report without action, we may see another such report in the future. I don't have a strong opinion at this time as to whether we should take any action on this report, or whether we should allow this report to be closed without action, and expect another report at some time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  We appear to be looking at an editor who does not like another editor

  My response to this is that I do not like Awshort's behavior toward me. Delectopierre (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, I'm not sure what action you would propose but so far, no administrator has thought that any action was warranted in this ongoing personal dispute.

I don't know if you realize it, Delectopierre, but I doubt there is a single editor on this project that doesn't have a rocky relationship with SOME other editor on this project, some editor (or maybe many editors) that they don't like or have no respect for. And yet, they find a way to continue on doing work on Wikipedia despite their ill-will towards another editor(s). If we blocked editors simply because they drove another editor crazy, well, we wouldn't have any editors left here to contribute. And, believe it or not, there is probably some editor out there that feels the same way about you that you feel about Awshort. I know there are editors on the project who don't care for me but we don't bring each other to ANI, we ignore each other instead and keep on doing our best work.

Of course, if there is serious misconduct, then that must be addressed but the fact that no admin has taken action yet on the two ANI threads you have started is a sign that, right now, no action is likely to be taken and your time would be better spent on other work. Now, I'll stop lecturing you and responding to this discussion. I advise you not to start a third ANI discussion on this subject unless there is serious, obvious misconduct. Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Liz - I thought that any of various actions might be in order, such as a caution to Delectopierre, and I am satisfied for now that you have provided it, if he heeds the caution. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: - I have a house walk through today that is taking up all of my spare time, but I will reply shortly after it is completed on this topic. If I could ask that it stays opened until I have a chance to do so and at least present my side, would that be okay?

Also, I had sent you an email on Jan 30th regarding advice on DP and how to proceed going forward. Your status said that you were busy in real life so I didn't ping you on your Talk Page, but I wanted to disclose it.

For full disclosure to anyone else, the message had in part

However, I don't want to automatically give up on DR since I feel it looks bad to automatically go to ANI over conduct while in DR , as well as wanting to follow proper procedure in the hopes that this user could learn from it. Long term, they seem like they could be extremely beneficial as an editor if they would stop doing original research and follow policies. Do we have any kind of mentorship program, or places like dispute resolution that could possibly help the user understand policies a bit better? Noticeboards seem like a last resort so I'm trying to find a middle ground to help them while also making sure they understand that how they are following policies may be problematic and showing how to correctly follow them.

And @Robert McClenon:, thank you for your help wkth the prior case. I never got to thank you but i appreciate your attempt at helping us both as well.

Awshort (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If I’m to be cautioned, it only seems fair that I get an explanation as to how Awshort’s behavior does not meet the definition of wikihounding.

As I read the policy, their behavior meets each element described on the policy page. Delectopierre (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Strict letter-of-the-law reading is also known as WP:WIKILAWYERING. Simply put, there is enough good faith explanations that it seems unlikely Awshort is directly hounding you, and more that you both have overlapping areas of interest & a disagreement on how to edit such topics.

You don't have to like each other, but there simply isn't enough evidence here to indicate harassment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don’t read the relevant policy to require proof of intent. Do you read it that way?

If so, that’s a nearly impossible standard to meet. Delectopierre (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've only just noticed this case here, but I am kind of an involved party, being the editor involved in the content dispute at Talk:Claus Spreckels. I have serious issues with Delectopierre's disregard for WP:NPOV in their contributions and their ongoing confusion about WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY sources and how these are to be used. But what I also find problematic, and this speaks to the issues on this page, is the tendency of this editor to be Wiki-litigious, being extremely obstinate when the problems with their contribution are pointed out, quick to revert other's edits, and engage in all manner of Wikilawyering to use challenge others on small points, ignoring big-picture concerns about NPOV and the primacy of secondary scholarly sourcing. Also, there's a tendency to quickly accuse other editors of WP:Civility violations while acting in a WP:BADGERing and provocative way themself.

I don't know the specifics of previous interactions between Delctopierre and Awshort, but I'm glad that since I posted to the NPOV noticeboard, there are now a few other editors who have looked at the Claus Spreckels article and have the same concerns that I do. For my part, I'm working on writing new material to replace what's currently in this section based on secondary scholarly sources, rather than being caught up in seemingly endless rounds of relitigating Wikipedia's most basic rules with this editor. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The referenced discussion is primarily a content dispute, and isn’t relevant to this post. But because it was highlighted up thread that on my first ANI post I didn’t respond to a content dispute on the last thread, I will do so here.

I find this rich coming from you.

In the discussion, you were warned by another user, and then by me, to ensure you were being civil. Your reply was that I should take it to a notice board, not that you would be civil.

Furthermore the assertions that the editors at the NPOV noticeboard were squarely on your side of the debate is not correct. They had some concerns with the language I added, which they modified and I did not contest. They also had concerns with the arguments you were making, yet you continued to make the same arguments.

The discussion led to your proposal of new language which I agreed to. Then you went way past that consensus and demand the entire subject be removed.

Delectopierre (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather creative way of looking at it. I'm not going to argue with you over behavior, considering your rather clear pattern (and I see it here too) of antagonizing people and then playing the victim when you manage to get a rise out of them. If I'm a tad too honest about calling such behavior the way I see it, I'll cop to that.

In terms of the content dispute, it seems that the editors who have taken the time to come to the talk page for Claus Spreckles article discuss the concerns about sourcing have not supported your position. Learn from that and move on. (And, for the record, I've never wanted "the entire subject to be removed", only the use of proper sourcing, neutral language, and that topic not carry undue weight in the space accorded to it.) Peter G Werner (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather creative way of looking at it

Right back atcha Delectopierre (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Delectopierre, you don't seem to understand when people speak gently to you, so I must tell you this bluntly. You are hounding Awshort by continually starting discussions here, rather than the reverse. I get that you have a mental illness (so, as a matter of fact, do I) but you can't expect co-workers at Wikipedia to provide the service that you should be getting from medically qualified people. Just stop. Now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an incredibly inappropriate comment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Omg. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

? Delectopierre (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Omg = Oh my God. I'm not too sure what that editor meant by that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems very (even incredibly) appropriate to me. What do you object to? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Your invocation of my psychiatric conditions and accusation that I use Wikipedians to treat said conditions rather than seeking professional help. I list my conditions on my user page in an effort to destigmatize psychiatric conditions. Your comments do the opposite. Delectopierre (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I invoked your psychiatric condition as something that some users might consider to be a mitigating factor in your defence, not to attack you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not consent to their invocation. It is inappropriate to do so for any user. Delectopierre (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Then I withdraw that part of my remark.Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: I'd like to suggest that this thread should be closed with a warning to the OP against combative behavior, wikilawyering, and the opening of frivolous ANI threads, and with a strong encouragement to take to heart the following passage from WP:AGF: When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.106.199 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 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.

Abdurahmantheking7

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.

---

A few hours ago, User:Abdurahmantheking7 edited the Erasmia article several times by disturbing the infobox, which resulted in him being blocked. Then, more edits were done to the same article (like this one and this one) as well as to the Pretoria article (here and here) by User:2c0f:f4c0:1301:81bc:5de6:8b61:de68:6989

For the same reason that the first-mentioned User was blocked, I suggest this IP address also gets blocked for some time. GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GeographicAccountant,

This noticeboard is for urgent, chronic, intractable problems. Given what you have stated, I recommend you report this at WP:AIV or start a report at WP:SPI as this is a very recent problem. Or contact the administrator who blocked Abdurahmantheking7 since they will be familiar with their editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I see User:Rsjaffe has already taken action on the IP Address; thanks to him as well. GeographicAccountant (talk) 22:20, 17 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.

Joslyn Rose Lyons

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.

---

• Managementartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joslyn Rose Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article for Joslyn Rose Lyons seems to have some serious WP:COI editing going on. I made an attempt to remove the puffery and clean up the page, and the edits have been reverted by @Managementartist. This editor appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to editing this page, and has a prior warning for promotional editing. Rather than continue to engage, I will defer to the experts. Thanks.

• Warning

I figured a list of diffs is redundant given their short edit history and the situation, but if requested I can edit this post to include them. (edit: Suspicious edit history also suggests the possibility of sockpuppetry.) Regards, Kylemahar902 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Specific diffs would help so that we don't need to look through all of their edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The editor only has 34 edits, all of which are on this page. Here are the diffs I'm specifically referring to in this post:

  • My edit
  • Revert

  I also added a COI tag following my edit which was removed by the same editor. Kylemahar902 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  By the way - if you'd like, I can link the account from the edit history that I suspect of being a sockpuppet, but I didn't want to go against any policy regarding "outing." If you would like me to do this, let me know. Kylemahar902 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't make any edit that links a Wikipedia account to a real-life identity unless they have disclosed this information on their User page. If you are concerned, send your information to ARBCOM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

My intention is not to speculate about the real-life identity of users, what I meant was there is an account in the edit history which seems to be an obvious sockpuppet account of the user I am referring to in this report. Apologies if my messages are unclear. Kylemahar902 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"Outing" specifically refers to linking an account to a real person. Linking two accounts you suspect to be sockpuppets is allowed, but should be done at WP:SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Managementartist from Joslyn Rose Lyons, leaving the editor free to make neutral, well-referenced edit requests on the article talk page. This editor clearly has a conflict of interest, and given their username, is likely an undisclosed paid editor. I've also reverted the article to a version without the promotional content. The article can be expanded properly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have also pageblocked Lteef777 for pretty much the same reasons, with the exception of the username issue. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 16 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:Manderston

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:Manderston has previously been temporarily banned for edit-warring, violating 3RR, not leaving edit notices, leaving innaccurate edit notices ("rvv" for non-vandalism), and marking non-minor edits as minor. His ban has since expired and much of the previous behavior has continued, along with numerous unhelpful edits changing "at the age of" to "aged" in the name of conciseness and "removing surplus words", leaving awkward wording in many circumstances that, while technically valid in English, is non-standard and distruptive. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Manderston has shewn absolutely no interest in communicating with other editors, ignoring all messages on their talk page except the block notice. The unblock request contained what looks to me like a lightly-veiled threat to sock if not unblocked. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Disruptive is barely the word. They might heave learned something from their indefinite block (not ban, pace Darth Stabro) if it had lasted more than 20 minutes, following an unblock request that not only failed to acknowledge any issues or concerns whatsoever, but stated Blocking my account is pointless and actually utterly ludicrous. Their talk page is a litany of advice (unheeded) or warnings (ignored). DuncanHill advised them regarding 'the age of' thing; Ssilvers warned them about edit warring; Schwede66 advised them regarding minor edits; PhilKnight advised them regarding mis-labelling edits as vandalism; while Sweetpool50 has suggested they are WP:GAMEing the system. Since then they have continued to edit war, and several editors—PhilKnight, Schwede66, myself and Billclinton1996 have requested that the previous block be reinstated. The blocking admin has also warned them that 'blocks could follow' if they maintain their behavior. I propose that this occurs ASAP. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Pretty good chance that's BKFIP. Proxy blocked, but there's a whole bunch of proxies and VPNs that are available again because all the 5-year range blocks from the late 2010s and early 2020s have finally timed out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 18 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.

SpacedFarmer disruptive editing, circumventing AfD topic ban

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.

---

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

SpacedFarmer is topic banned from deletion discussions which was imposed in August 2024. They broke that ban here in September 2024 and were warned about it yet didn't reply. Over the last few days, they have gone on a notability tag spree. After I removed one of the tags, they attempted to circuvent the AfD process on Man Laws which I warned them about. In response to the warning, they followed me to The Incredible, Edible Egg page and re-added a bunch of tags that I had removed, without giving any reasoning, then also attempted to circumvent AfD by proposing a merger (as they did with Man Laws). Note that I had made changes earlier to clean up those tags. Filing here in hopes of getting a response since they don't seem to want to respond to talk page warnings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2025(UTC)

SpacedFarmer is topic banned not just from AfD, but more broadly from "deletion and deletion-related processes, broadly construed". They have been violating their topic ban and so I have blocked them for two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 18 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.

Userspace violations

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.

---

• Bearcat (talk · contribs)

I'm quite concerned about Bearcat's behaviour: they intentionally removed content from other contributors' userpages, also edit-warring users who contested their removals, eg. Ned Scott. I randomly found them edit-warring on my userpage (check the history at User:Est. 2021/Userpage), then I noticed the wider pattern. Besides any user's right to retain deleted categories on their userpages, they should not (ab)use their admin rights to disrupt others editors' userspace, even edit-warring about their POV. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Est. 2021, are you seriously bringing a longtime contributor (22+ years) to ANI over Category:Wikipedians that poop? How is edit-warring "(ab)use their admin rights"? Did you seek to discuss this difference of opinion before posting here? Is this ANIworthy? And diffs would have been helpful here rather than links to pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  (Ad-lib comment) does being an admin make them immune to rules? Does the time they spent on here also make them immune to rules? Bearcat is edit warring over a category. •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The first and most important rule that was applicable here is that pages aren't allowed to be left sitting in redlinked categories. If an admin cleans up a redlinked category and then somebody else reverts the redlinked category back onto the page, in defiance of REDNO, then the person who reverted the category back onto the page is the one who gets dinged for editwarring, not the admin who was simply doing a necessary cleanup task. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yikes imagine edit warning over an user space article •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As usual, cyberwolf, your ad-lib comments are not helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok ill shut the fuck up •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of userpages, how does Cyberwolf get away with the WP:POLEMIC WP:BLP violations on theirs?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Great now we are derailing the conversation I can’t wait for an an/i to hit me like a truck •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy now? •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

sorry for introjecting out of nowhere, but maybe it would help if you were less...defensive, if that's the word? it definitely doesn't help your case at all. ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If it helps, I brought up said removal at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 18 after a quick discussion on the deleting Wikipedian's talk page, since it looks like the category being re-deleted is what triggered Bearcat's removal from the user pages. Booyahhayoob (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not allowed to be left sitting in redlinked categories that don't exist to have pages filed in them. That's not "my POV", it's a hard rule explicitly spelled out at both WP:CATREDLINK and WP:REDNO.

Users do not have a special right to retain redlinked categories on their userpage, in defiance of REDNO, just because the userpage belongs to them — redlinked categories on userpages still get detected by the redlinked category cleanup report, just the same as any other redlinked categories, which means they're still a problem that has to be fixed regardless of whether they're in mainspace or userspace. The thing is, the redlinked category cleanup report has a size limit beyond which it is full, and cannot detect more redlinked categories over and above its size limit. And if you say "but this is just one category, surely that can't break the size limit if we make a special exception for it", well, the thing is that if we make a special exception for this redlinked category then we also have to make a special exception for the next redlinked category that people want to add to their userpages as well, and the next one after that and the next one after that until the size limit has been breached.

There's simply nothing about "Wikipedians who poop" that should earn it special treatment that wouldn't also have to be given "Wikipedians who eat cheese", "Wikipedians with ten toes", "Wikipedians who do that voodoo that you do so well", or anything else in a virtually infinite list of categories that Wikipedians could possibly want to add to their userpages even though they don't exist either — because if we extend redlinked user categories an exemption to REDNO, then the redlinked user categories will eventually crowd out the report and make it impossible to clean up any other redlinked categories that aren't exempted from REDNO.

That's not just a theoretical problem, either: a decade ago we did have a rule that redlinked user categories were exempted from REDNO, and the redlinked categories actually did cause the report to bloat up past its size limit and stop detecting redlinked mainspace categories. It literally took months of cleanup to get the report below its size limit so that it was actually reporting all redlinked categories rather than just an "only up to its size limit" sample.

So a consensus was established, a full decade ago now, that redlinked user categories aren't allowed to be left on user pages, and are not sacrosanct just because the user who put them there invokes "ownership" rights over their user profile. This isn't "my POV", REDNO is a hard rule that user categories do still have to follow just the same as mainspace categories do, precisely because if redlinked user categories are allowed to proliferate then they break our ability to clean up redlinked mainspace categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This category contains userpage categories which have been deleted by a consensus decision at WP:CFD or the former WP:UCFD.
Some editors have reinstated the category entries on their userpages. In doing so, they have created a redlink that, per WP:REDNOT, shows up in error lists such as Special:WantedCategories. These lists are used to identify errors in categorization. It is also limited in size and shows only a subset of the currently red-linked categories, so a red-linked category on a userpage displaces categories that other editors are trying to fix.
Therefore, these formerly redlinked categories have been re-created as hard redirects, and thus, no longer redlinks. This way, they still appear on userpages (respecting those editors' wishes), but are not navigable categories (respecting the consensus of the deletion discussions).
From the catagory pages
So i would recommend not deleting but doing a redirect •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

From the edit history, it looks like this category was a redirect to that placeholder page, but then got deleted (by a different editor, not by me) a couple of days ago and then being restored today pursuant to Booyahhayoob's request that they mentioned above. So if anybody deserves a trout here, it's the editor who deleted it in the first place, not me. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's the admin who deleted this category or the editor who tagged them for speedy deletion (CSD G4). They are both experienced editors and my own view is that these incidents with User categories (red linked or not) happen every few years and we go through this discussion again somewhere, generally at CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• This is an issue that seems to be enforced somewhat arbitrarily. If we have a hard rule about not allowing deleted categories on userpages, first empty out e.g. Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page and then decide if standard practice should be to redirect in-use userpage categories as with the, um, poop? one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer for that one to go away too, but there's long been a consensus that it is the one and only uniquely permissible exception to the rule about redlinked categories, specifically on the basis that it's a meta-joke whose entire purpose is inherently defeated if it's redirected to the "deleted categories" placeholder and thus turns blue instead of red. What it does to facilitate collaboration the way user categories are required to, I don't know — but the consensus has long been that it's the only allowable redlink, and I've never felt all that inclined to take on the heavy lifting involved in trying to overturn that consensus. If you're willing to take that on, by all means go for it, but I'm not willing to be the leader of that charge. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That's sort of my point: we tell newbies they have to follow the rule, but those experienced enough to get the meta joke thumbing its nose at the rule can do so. I could imagine anyone who had someone come to their user page and edit war away their own joke category would probably be annoyed by a sanctioned category that does exactly the same thing. And yes, the number of people who would come out to say "don't take away my joke category" would far outnumber anyone who would come out to defend e.g. the poop category. Putting that aside, why isn't standard procedure just [remove a category] → [user doesn't restore it | user restores it and category gets redirected]? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I mean, we don't disagree on the fundamentals here. In addition to the issue you note where users sometimes think the permissibility of that redlinked joke category authorizes the creation of other redlinked joke categories, I've also come across instances of people thinking that WP:ENGVAR authorized them to create differently-spelled variants of that category, such as ones which pulled the hyphen out of "red-linked", instead of using the same redlink as everybody else.
I absolutely don't get why that category is important, necessary or valuable enough to warrant its own special exemption — and since we would never ordinarily categorize user talk pages at all in any other circumstance, I see even less of a legitimate reason for its talk pages sibling to exist at all — but precisely because consensus has permitted them, trying to overturn that now is a bigger fight than I'm personally willing to take on. But like I said, you'd have my support if you were willing to take it on, but it's not the hill I'm willing to die on. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with anyone dude. Why do you have to throw me under the bus I don’t like being accused of such things •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand this as a response to what I wrote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

[43] •Cyberwolf•. talk? 17:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in there is remotely about you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Ay leave my Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page alone 😡 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion is not about editors or admins, it's about red linked categories. And there are two that I know of that are allowable, Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page. This is about an obscure and old policy discussion about categories that's happened over the past 20 years, please, folks, stop taking these discussions personally. In fact, unless anyone has anything new to say that is relevant to say about red linked categories, I think this discussion should be closed. If you want to debate further whether or no individual categories should exist, then make a nomination at WP:CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think one matter at hand is whether categories deleted at CFD should be allowed to be recreated as a redirect so that people can add themselves to said category. It goes against what we would normally allow and I'd like to see the category, which has been recreated as a redirect, be G4 deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally object to having it deleted, but that would require the editors who are in the category to not put their user pages back into a redlinked category — which is precisely where this problem started, from an editor revert-warring me about the pages being in a redlinked category. We can't delete it while allowing the pages to stay in the redlink anyway — either it gets deleted and the pages in it come out of it and stay out, or it has to stay in place as a redirect as long as those editors aren't willing to abide by its removal, and just leaving it as a non-empty redlink isn't an option. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally just don't see a reason not to have all of the categories in Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages deleted. From there, it's a matter of adherence to policy. We're essentially saying that users are allowed to disregard the outcome/consensus formed at CFD if it's a WP:USERCAT. Then what, anything deleted at CfD can be recreated if it's a redirect and everyone can continue to add themselves to it while ignoring the outcome? This seems pretty ridiculous to me. I see no reason not to process CSD requests if those categories were tagged and, if they are repeatedly recreated, they can/probably should be salted. As for users continuing to add red cats to their user page, that's an issue to be addressed outside of accusations of edit warring.

I just don't get why this hasn't been dealt with. I support that Significa G4 deleted the category that led to this discussion and I'm disappointed it was recreated. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Agreed, Liz. We have a long-standing compromise that both "sides" are not thrilled with, but can live with. I don't understand the periodic desire, by people on one "side" or the other, to tear up that compromise. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Is any of this compromise written down anywhere? Or do we just happen upon it by deleting what appears to be an improper category thus waking the leviathan? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't be serious Est. 2021. I find no violation in such routine tasks by Bearcat. Please don't unnecessarily diverge any admin's/dedicated editor's precious time for this meagre issue. – Garuda ^Talk! 20:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI to editors following the above thread, I have RFD'd the category page after the page was recreated, tagged for speedy deletion, and had the CSD tag removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 19 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.

Conflict of Interest

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.

---

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

This account was originally named "M3mediachennai", which Google brings up multiple results suggesting it may be a marketing/advertising agency based in Chennai, India - 1, 2 (for examples). The user has been advised of the CoI guidelines before in January 2025, again in January 2025, and I asked them again today to confirm their understanding. In addition, I asked them to confirm why they chose the name they did initially, and they have dodged the question repeatedly. This user initially created Archana Singh (Film Actress) as a draft page, then after it was declined rather than improve it they moved it to mainspace themselves (it is now up for AfD).

It appears likely this user has an undisclosed conflict of interest with the actor in some way and should be blocked from editing related to that subject (or entirely). Or perhaps someone else can get them to explain their initial choice of username and continued editing about one subject exclusively in a way that resolves what appears to be a conflict of interest. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear cut case of UPE and an indef NOTHERE block wouldn't be out of order. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:31, 18 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.

Disruptive RfC at Talk:Gaza war#RfC: Adding the United States to the infobox

In the light of the previous RfC, Template talk:Gaza war infobox#RfC: Should the US and UK be added as allies to Israel in the infobox? closed 7 February 2025, this new RfC would appear to be pointy and misbegotten. I would suggest a speedy close to minimise disruption in what is a contentious topic area.

I have attempted to dissuade the proposer from this course or at least give it better consideration at User talk:TurboSuperA+#Talk:Gaza war#RfC: Adding the United States to the infobox.

The previous RfC has pretty much flogged the issue to death as one can see from the discussion there. While the RfC was closed, I do not believe that the close by Dr vulpes has reasonably closed the issue. Some concerns have been raised with the closer at User talk:Dr vulpes#Re: Closing of the Gaza War RfC about US/UK inclusion in the infobox. While they did provide some response, this does not appear to have reasonably addressed the concerns raised.

My primary motive for bringing this to ANI is to prevent disruption which I see would be archived in the first instance by closing/withdrawing the RfC. A better close of the previous RfC would, in my opinion give closure to the issue. While the community might consider further action beyond that, that is for the community to decide. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cinderella157,

Okay, you said to prevent disruption which I see would be archived in the first instance by closing/withdrawing the RfC. So, what you are asking for here is a reclose of the original RFC? Are you asking that it be reopened, too? What should be done with the second RFC? Generally, I believe, editors who object to RFC closures bring the case to WP:AN after they have discussed the matter with the closer, not WP:ANI.

Right now, I'm just trying to figure out what you are seeking here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that pursuing the current RfC to be disruptive (an incident) and it should be suspended/closed/withdrawn forthwith to prevent further disruption. This is the primary issue for ANI. I see some of the reason for TurboSuperA+ opening this new RfC to be the inadequacy of the previous close. It may have reached the right conclusion but was not adequate in putting the matter to rest - ie it is a significant contributing factor. Ultimately, the previous RfC does need a better close (ie a reclose or perhaps something else) - one that provides closure to the question. The previous RfC is a secondary issue. Though not an incident, it is pertinent. Whether ANI chooses to deal with this at the same time or defer the matter to another venue is up to ANI to decide. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cinderella157,

What I was really attempting to do with my comment is to be clear on a) what you were asking the community to do and b) to consider if this was the appropriate location for this request. The reasons WHY you want this action to happen can be considered by other editors who respond to this post. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, to what you were asking the community to do? I thought I was quite clear as to what I am asking the community to do regarding the primary issue - for the new RfC to be suspended/closed/withdrawn forthwith. It is for the community to determine if anything further is required. For the secondary issue, a better close/reclose is ultimately sought. [T]o consider if this was the appropriate location for this request? For the primary issue, I acted in part on the advice of Bishonen (here). This does appear to me to be a disruptive incident falling within the remit of ANI. By itself, this is not the appropriate venue to decide the secondary issue. However, I identified it as having significant context to the primary issue and it would reasonably require some scrutiny by the community in deciding the primary issue. Whether ANI chooses to deal with this at the same time, having made some investment in scrutinising the matter to determine the primary issue or defer the matter to another venue is up to ANI to decide. I hope this additional detail would now sufficiently address your questions. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm just noting that I've seen this message and will wait to opine until @Liz's questions are settled. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 You started a topic on my page [44] and you didn't respond to my last post [45] asking you to clarify your points. Instead you pinged an administrator [46] and when that administrator didn't do what you want you started this ANI process. Do you intend to ping admins and start topics on noticeboards until you get your way?

I explained my reasoning in the RfC I started, I then repeated my reasoning to you on my talk page and yet you still ignore what I am saying and substitute your own explanation for my motivations. I will now repeat myself for the third time.

I started the new RfC because the question is fundamentally different to the question in the previous RfC ("Should the US and UK be added as allies in other theaters to Israel in the infobox?"):

• 1) The previous question asked about "US and UK", implying that the foreign policy of the two countries is the same and that the reasons for including one would apply to the other. This isn't true and my RfC asks about including the United States only.
• 2) The previous RfC asked about including US and UK "in other theatres", my question is about including the United States in the Gaza war theatre.

Yes, it is true that I have written a message on @Dr vulpes Talk page regarding their close of the previous RfC. However, after some consideration, I realised that neither reclosing the RfC nor reopening it makes sense, because as you yourself have noted on Dr Vulpes' Talk page "a key premise of this RfC has changed effectively rendering the question posed redundant." [47]

Why would we reopen or reclose an RfC whose question is no longer relevant? That is why starting a new RfC seemed like the better course of action. I didn't think Dr Vulpes would mind since they said "reopen the RfC you're not going to hurt my feelings and there will be no repercussions by doing so." [48] The question is no longer relevant because the "allies in other theatres" section has been removed from the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"Do you intend to ping admins and start topics on noticeboards until you get your way?"..."I then repeated my reasoning to you"..."I will now repeat myself for the third time."...just so you know, this is not usually a productive way to talk to people in the PIA topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

But starting a topic on my Talk page and then refusing to respond is a productive way to talk to people? It seems to me the editor is simply "going through the motions" to justify this ANI request, rather than reach an agreement. Not only did the editor refuse to respond, they ignored everything I had said and continued to assert that my motivations are different than the ones I laid out. Do you see how frustrating that can be?

"I will now repeat myself for the third time."

With that I hoped to bring attention to the fact that what I am saying is being ignored: "I see some of the reason for TurboSuperA+ opening this new RfC to be the inadequacy of the previous close."

That is not my reason at all, as I have said multiple times. This would be a much more productive discussion if editors didn't assume that I am lying regarding my reasons and motivations. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Cinderella157: whatever the rights and wrongs of starting a new RFC on a narrower question after the previous one closed as no consensus, (and I haven't closely followed the whole saga) I can't help thinking your tone here and at TurboSuperA+'s talk page is unnecessarily bad faith and aggressive. The RFC is neutrally worded and explains why it might try to reach a more decisive outcome than the last one, with people opening there accordingly. It might be that it ends up as intractable as the last one and maybe the closer of the last one will give opinions on its validity, but either way this doesn't look like a user conduct issue and Bishonen already declined to close the RFC as obviously disruptive when you asked them to do so. Please keep this collegiate, and there is no emergency here that requires immediate intervention. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith in response to the several complaints, I have withdrawn my question. I removed the {{rfc}} tag. If I need to do anything else, someone let me know.

I hope this can put a rest to the speculations about my motivations and what I am doing on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Same request

After seeing this new RFC, I had intended to open a thread like this at WP:AE, since things tend to be more structured there... but in the interest of not splitting threads, I'll post here.

The new RFC is plainly WP:DISRUPTIVE, because it raises no new question or new information that wasn't considered in the previous RFC, closed just 10 days ago. It seems pretty well-established in this topic area that opening formal discussions in this way so soon after a previous formal discussion closed is considered disruptive (one such prior example from AE).

TurboSuperA+ raises only two issues with the previous RFC:

• the question changed half-way through the RfC It did not - participants were discussing the role of the US in the conflict, and its applicability as a belligerent, up until the closing of the discussion
• it used "US/UK" implying that the foreign policy of the two countries is the same when that is clearly not the case. This RfC focuses on the question of including the United States only The discussion in the last RFC was at least 95% about the US alone. Other countries like the UK, Germany, France were mentioned, but the bulk of the discussion was on the US. Thus, opening a new RFC "just to focus on the US" isn't needed.

I'd also like to see this RFC speedy closed, and TurboSuperA+ warned in a similar vein as WikiFouf was. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"It did not"

Yes, it did, and here's the diff to prove it: [49]

And here is at least one editor calling it a bad RfC because of the change [50] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That edit was made when the RFC was 6 hours old. It then proceeded to run for ~3 months before closure. A far cry from a "halfway" change as you said. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"That edit was made when the RFC was 6 hours old."

If that is the case, then I am wrong. I apologise. It was about half-way through the revision history of the thread so I assumed it was half-way through the RfC without looking at yhe dates.

But still, the question is different in my view. If its decided in this ANI that I shouldn't have started the RfC I'll be more careful in the future.

I didn't mean to be disruptive, I genuinely thought an RfC might be appropriate. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The question as discussed in the prior RFC (which you can ascertain from the discussion - RFCs rarely focus only on the exact wording of the question first posed) was "should the US be included under the belligerent header as an ally of Israel in this war?" You've asked much the same question in this new RFC. You can tell because people are answering with much the same arguments as were put forward previously.

You yourself opened the RFC repeating points that were already discussed in the previous RFC, such as:

1. There are US troops listed in the infobox under "Strength", it is unusual that the United States itself wouldn't be listed in the infobox. [51]
2. The US has sent THAAD missile batteries and troops to operate them in Israel, WP:RS say that the US troops are deployed "in combat". [52]
3. Some academics have explicitly stated US is a co-belligerent, although I am not sure if it is WP:UNDUE. [53]

(All three diffs from the previous discussion, where those points were discussed) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Of relevance -- even the editors on TurboSuperA+'s "side" here admit that there was no discussion in between the RFCs and no new information exists that would have changed the consensus or outcome [54]. This was a nakedly bad-faith RFC, and this should frankly merit a topic-ban at the minimum for those involved in pushing it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Nonsubstantive micro-edits to attain access to extended-protection articles and disruptive behavior

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.

---

Ira varia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,

This user, User:Ira varia, is engaging in disruptive editing on the Yom Kippur War article, disregarding an ongoing RfC pertaining to the content he/she is trying to edit and persistently removing sourced content without addressing multiple editors who have attempted to engage in discussion. Upon reviewing this user's contribution history, it becomes evident that their prior activity consists almost entirely of nonsubstantive micro-edits, the classic add space, revert, add space, revert routine, seemingly made with the sole intent of circumventing protection restrictions and gaining access to protected articles, where they are now acting in bad faith. Perhaps someone more qualified can review this pattern of behavior and determine whether administrative action is warranted. Turnopoems (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely a case of WP:PGAME, as seen in the history of Moral sense theory. Recommend revoking that EC status. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An example of the useless edits the user in question was spamming. Also, I'm pretty sure this WP:PGAME was really just to modify the article (Yom Kippur War) as they have straight up called some constructive contributions moving the results thing in the infobox to "Aftermath" section vandalism in January. Pretty sure the revocation of the user's EC rights is in order. I'll probably file a report for the apparent 1RR violation later. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Removed. Is there a standard template for this? I've done it twice this morning. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  BusterD - Template:Uw-ecgaming is probably what you are looking for. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll add it to my tool kit. BusterD (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Clear intention in heading. Thank you, User:Turnopoems. Seems long, but as a sysop I like to know what I'm about to read. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Now they're calling us Egyptians over this thread. User called themselves "Someone speaking the truth" as well. Common pattern in WP:NOTHERE accounts... ([55]) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week including talk page privileges (since their talk page contributions violate AE.) BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

331 utterly trivial and entirely worthless edits in an hour and 35 minutes. Gaming the system at its very worst. Good block. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 19 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.

Mthss.krtz

• Mthss.krtz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Persistent disruptive behavior and a refusal to cooperate from this user who repeatedly adds circular and/or poorly sourced material to religion-related articles ([56][57][58]). 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 23:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Mthss.krtz has a number of warnings on their talk page but has never responded to any messages. I just tagged the article they created today as possibly AI-generated. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll just note that this editor has made a total of 20 edits, more than 50% of them just today. I'm not sure if "persistent" can refer to just a few hours of activity. I usually think of persistent as behavior sustained over months or years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Violating one way interaction ban

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.

---

זור987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:זור987 violated the one way interaction ban with me, when they wrote it.

זור987 hounded and harassed me, canvassing the En WP with the He WP issues.

זור987 wrote upon me: "tracking, stalking and harassing users in the Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as here and other languages Wikipedias and in the real life, as well as using sock puppets for the same activity". They did not show any sock who did "the same activity", nor showed any "stalking and harassing users in the Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as here and other languages Wikipedias". I have not written in the He WP mainspace since October 2021.

Please delete the text which they wrote, and consider their blocking from their talk page. I rely upon the warning which 331dot wrote to them on January 22, 2025, and upon the blocking by Yamla on November 26, 2024 due to violating the one way interaction ban. Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 22:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This editor has been indefinitely blocked since January 13th but STILL found a way to violate their existing IBAN with you so talk page access has been removed. I'm sorry for the persistent harrassment from this editor on other Wikipedia projects but at least it should be over here. Their persistent targeting of you is unacceptable. If they decide to sock, please report them at WP:SPI or to your local admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 20 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.

WP:CIR and incivility by Jan55is

Jan55is (talk · contribs) has been warned several times for WP:CIR editing on List of traffic collisions (2000–present), particularly their insistence on bare URLs and insertion of deprecated sources, and led me to initially believe that it was textbook vandalism, and has instead resorted to hostile edits when being told off. See [59] and [60]. They have also created what appears to be a copyvio duplicate Draft:Sunkosi River of Sunkoshi River. Borgenland (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's best that Jan55is be escorted off the project. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I also have a suspicion that Camwillis4 (talk · contribs), a newly-created SPA account may be a sock on account of similar bare url editing, though since nothing WP:NOTHERE has been proven yet I concede that an SPI cannot be made for now. Borgenland (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Y'know, looking at that talk page, Borgenland, would you care to explain why you were so hostile to Jan55is? The lashing back of his responses notwithstanding, I'd be pretty damn caustic myself if you'd started out by telling me "Please learn to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you ever insert a crappy reference into an entry in List of traffic collisions (2000–present) again, you can be blocked from editing" or yet you continue to exhibit subpar editing and leave others to clean up your mess as a sign of irresponsibility. NWA works both ways, and you sure weren't covering yourself with glory there. Ravenswing 18:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Borgenland, why was the first warning that this editor received in December an "only" warning threatening a block without explaining what problems there were with their edits? You never even identified which of their edits were "vandalism". You should never start out with the harshest warnings with a new editor.

They have responded poorly, that's for sure, but your message was about the worst possible way of welcoming a new editor to the project and explaining policy that there is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. At the time I first noticed them, the edits were quite poorly-written and sometimes incoherent that it did seem to be vandalism. As for Ravenswing, said comments were made after user in question restored a deprecated source [61] [62] and inserted a personal attack, in addition to this "why don't u just do it yourself and stop complaining", which I found more interesting and hence the irresponsible part because I believe it meant a general unwillingness on their part to improve and their belief that they can continue with their editing knowing that someone will clean it up for them, which is quite frustrating given that every single edit they have made on the page consists of a bare url and sometimes badly-written and unencyclopedic prose [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. Third warning was made following another deprecated insertion [69], which following the previous warning regarding WP:RS, I believed was yet another sign of WP:IDNHT. I wouldn't mind if I have to correct editors stumbling periodically with competence related issues, but if the user in question has a chronic WP:CIR problem and keeps on editing the same way despite being informed, I believe more serious action has to be carried out Borgenland (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

And that serious action does not include insulting them. "But teacher, he STARTED IT!" doesn't constitute a get-out-of-ANI-free clause from NPA, and it's troubling that you don't seem to get that. Ravenswing 02:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand that I can get hawkish with chronic WP:CIR editors and periodically bite, but with all due respect, I am not trying to wiggle myself out of here. I'd rather find every available way for said user to take things seriously regardless if I get boomeranged. Borgenland (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Borgenland, but this was not a chronic WP:CIR editor situation, you left a "final warning, you're going to get blocked" as your first message to them two days after they started editing. A clear "newbie", and I still don't see what about their edits was "vandalism" and you didn't give them any information at all about a) policies and guidelines on this project or b) what on earth they are doing wrong. Then you continue with hostile messages calling their sources "crap". As far as I can see their only fault was being inexperienced and unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules on sourcing. New editors shouldn't be treated as if they are vandals if they are only making mistakes and are not actually vandalizing anything.

I really hope you were just having a bad day because this approach is a terrific way to get new editors to leave and never come back. And Wikipedia survives by having a constant influx of new editors who we, that's you, me and everyone else, needs to teach how to properly edit on this project. Instead of viewing yourself as a Project Defender, consider becoming a Project Teacher and Mentor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Worrying concerns regarding Noorullah21 & co.

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.

---

• Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrGreen1163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm here due to serious concerns regarding these users. I would apologize to them (specifically Noorullah21) if bringing them to multiple noticeboards was excessive, but there was no bad faith intended. The issue is that these users are heavily engaged in meatpuppetry, if not outright sockpuppetry. I say this because I have observed them coordinating edits, tagging pages together, and engaging in off-wiki canvassing.

I have submitted several screenshots to ArbCom, showing that Noorullah, in his Discord group, appears to be assisting MrGreen1163 by offering them to review their articles, which is clearly an abuse of NPR right. Noorullah's Discord bio states, "Idolatry is bad," which reflects a narrow-minded attitude, particularly toward non-Muslims. While one could argue that this is a personal belief, I am unsure whether such remarks are acceptable in this context. Given Noorullah's role as an editor, one would expect a more responsible and open-minded approach.

Noorullah and co are deeply involved in meatpuppetry. I previously filed an SPI on them and some other members of their group (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noorullah21) by providing ample evidence of both on-wiki and off-wiki coordination. However, I found it odd that Bbb23 closed the SPI without waiting for a checkuser to perform a check. See this discussion. I'm not trying to bad-mouth them, but I have noticed that they often block editors even with less evidence presented [70]. Maybe they did it because the off-wiki evidence wasn't provided to them. Note that I'm only reporting these two users and not the other co in SPI, because I'm unsure if other discord users are exactly them or not but in the case of Noorullah and MrGreen It's easily verified because their Wikipedia username matches with their discord account and the tagging evidence of screenshots further proves that.

Given these concerns, I believe ANI is the appropriate venue to raise this issue. I have already submitted all relevant evidence regarding their meatpuppetry to ArbCom, specifically to CaptainEek and Daniel Case. Moreover, Noorullah's editing behavior on Wikipedia is no good either. He has been warned at least three times [71][72][73] for edit warring in the past month, and his POV-pushing at Third Anglo-Afghan War is also concerning [74]. Indo-Greek 13:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Indo-Greek, you must leave a notice on an editor's talkpage when bringing them up here. On CU, it will not provide evidence of meatpuppetry over discord, so it would not help to evaluate your claims. CMD (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I just did that a minute before you made this reply. I agree with you that technical data might not evaluate meatpuppetry, but still I have seen on many occasions that CU usually overlooked the size of evidence, and do the check anyways. Indo-Greek 14:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to head off the inevitable question, yes, we have received an email from HerakliosJulianus regarding this issue. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm not sure why I'm in a discussion about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry considering I rarely ever make any substantial edits to Wikipedia these days, only making a few minor edits in articles that I read. As I just viewed, I wasn't even a part of the previous SPI that you filed against Noorullah. I previously knew Noorullah from a history community in Roblox and its related Discord server, where we discussed a range of geopolitical and historical matters relating to South Asia and Central Asia. I was in his Discord server, which is where I assume you are referencing these screenshots of our discussions, but I left his server months ago by this point. Once again, I barely ever make substantial edits to Wikipedia these days because I quite frankly don't have the time. I haven't talked to Noorullah in months either, and this incident led me to directly message him on Discord since October. In fact, I don't recall any instance where I've backed Noorullah's case regarding a Wikipedia dispute, but rather we have had conflicting edits ourselves. For instance, Noorullah reverted an edit of mine regarding the Soviet–Afghan War page. [75] This encounter is the only instance that I recall of us even engaging each other on Wikipedia; forgive me if I am mistaken, I simply do not remember. Noorullah and I do not even edit the same articles for the most part, as I largely focus on articles relating to Pakistan and its modern history, while he focuses on articles relating to Afghans. All in all, I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia editing after a short tenure, and I'd prefer to be kept out of this dispute. Thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I think this dragging across noticeboards is way excessive, from filing a failed SPI to this? Moving on .... I told MrGreen I'd help review his articles in the sense of how to improve them, not that I'd biasedly approve them with my page patroller. Have I otherwise shown that I've ever reviewed their pages? Please point it out if I've done so. I've helped multiple users (over discord) on how to improve their editing while improving mine, See cases here: (With User:Bulgarr: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] - --- Is there a place I can submit counter evidence in the form of screenshots from discord that can further corroborate this? Let me know, thanks. Regarding "Moreover, Noorullah's editing behavior on Wikipedia is no good either. He has been warned at least three times... past month, and his POV-pushing at Third Anglo-Afghan War is also concerning... The diff you mentioned toward POV-Pushing shows me responding back with a source? Is POV-PUSHING using a source? --- "I previously filed an SPI on them and some other members of their group" - Dude, I'm not affiliated with anybody or directly help them with WP:CANVASSING. "closed the SPI without waiting for a checkuser to perform a check." - I already said I was open to a Checkuser checking me out, I'm not affiliated with anybody and would rather like to dismiss your now borderline Personal attacks because few disagreed with you in past discussions. Noorullah (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• I find this complaint misleading, even though I am having multiple disputes with Noorullah21. It does not make any sense to claim that MrGreen1163 and Noorullah21 are sockpuppets/meatpuppets. If anything, Noorullah21 has reverted MrGreen1163.[82] The nature of private evidence involved here which ANI is completely incapable of dealing with. This thread should be closed but before this we should analyse the behaviour of the OP HerakliosJulianus. I had a look into the edits of the HerakliosJulianus, and I find their creations, such as Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War, Battle of Jammu (1774), and more to be concerning. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  No this thread should definitely not be closed. If you don't know anything about their off-wiki canvassing then why come to any preemptive conclusion? If you think my articles are having issues then please do AfD. This is nothing but an Ad hominem case. Indo-Greek 16:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, this is extremely bizarre- most of this appears to be off-wiki stuff- I do find bringing up their Discord Bio and framing that as "a narrow-minded attitude, particularly toward non-Muslims." to be inappropriate though and the actions of HerakliosJulianus feel questionable at best. This thread should really be closed, not sure what we can do here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I do find bringing up their Discord Bio and framing that as "a narrow-minded attitude, particularly toward non-Muslims."
Agreed tbh. People love to troll on Discord anyways 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I don’t know what to say. Thanks for your support guys. Really felt discouraged by these rampant attacks (on me). @Abo Yemen @Chipmunkdavis @Ratnahastin Noorullah (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"actions of HerakliosJulianus feel questionable at best" huh. So I'm being attacked/Boomeranged just a day after the thread started? Exactly what do you find in my behaviour as "questionable". Also I'd like you to remember that no one is immune to boomerang, yes that includes every involved user here. It's rather vague that you don't find their bigotry at least concerning. And the thread is not going to close anyway. Only ArbCom or ANI clerk can direct here what should be done (specifically ArbCom as they have all those screenshots). Heraklios 16:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"It's rather vague that you don't find their bigotry at least concerning."

With the evidence I can see, the only claim of bigotry is an alleged Discord Bio stating "Idolatry is bad" and that this is "a narrow-minded attitude, particularly toward non-Muslims.". That's an extreme stretch, and there is no provided evidence that this is influencing their on-wiki behavior.

"the chances of getting them caught on a technical CU check is miniscule"

Why was a CU even requested then? You could've opened the SPI without requesting CU, but the outcome would've been the same regardless.

"If you don't know anything about their off-wiki canvassing then why come to any preemptive conclusion?"

Then why are we here? We don't and can't know anything about the off-wiki stuff, only ArbCom can do anything about it as the SPI failed.

It's clear that WP:AGF is also not being followed here and that's why I brought up your behavior. This is not the place for this kind of dispute. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 18:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No that's not a "extreme strech" and you know that very well, please don't downplay it like that. "Why was a CU even requested then?": because an account in that group namely Southasianhistorian8 had a past of sockpuppetery. Considering that and further evidence provided, CU request was justified. I see that you have re-looked at the SPI, that's good. Now you know what, go down there [83] and you'll find that I'm not alone in this, another verteran user Simonm223, rightly pointed out that:

Just a note this diff would tend to indicate two things:

1. it is likely Noorullah and Southasianhistorian8 are different people.

2. it is likely they are coordinating off-wiki.

So I'd kindly request you again. Please don't WP:BLUDGEON unnecessary, if you're unaware of the issue or rather don't have those screenshots. "Then why are we here? We don't and can't know anything about the off-wiki stuff" Why shouldn't we? I can pass on many instances where off-wiki issue is being brought here. I'm definitely assuming good faith from the beginning, I even begged for pardon from Noorullah if this is excessive, but it's necessary. Instead I'm being boomeranged unnecessary whether for my good if not best articles or filing of my SPI & ANI, now this I don't feel is WP:AGF. Heraklios 19:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, you were alone. It was closed by an Administrator for lack of evidence, and the individual didn't respond back after I responded to them. (Which you can see in the same diff you linked). Noorullah (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

As the person who you are quoting I'll note that it's generally wise to drop the issue when an SPI goes a way you didn't expect. CUs have tools we don't and the admins who adjudicate SPI see it more than we do. I tend to trust their judgment even when it contradicts my instincts. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd have literally dropped this issue if I hadn't gotten more of their discord group screenshot, and in a day, I'd be sharing more. On ANI at least I'd quote the exact texts of their chats. Heraklios 20:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"discord group screenshot" - Now you're really intriguing me about the "evidence", because the only time I've interacted with MrGreen about Wikipedia was on one server, none of which I ever said I'd canvass for him (especially since it was a Public server, lmao). It'd be nice if I could see this evidence to shut it down because I can chatlog back to it..?

By interacted I just mean talked with about Wikipedia. Noorullah (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

How does that make me alone here? Only a CU can verify if you are telling us the truth here [84]. Heraklios 20:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So wait, you think I wasn't emailed on Wikipedia by him? Would gladly love for a Checkuser to see this and check the email I sent to immediately shut down this point. @Primefac

Otherwise, can I post the actual email here? (It's fairly long and accuses @HerakliosJulianus of being a sockpuppet.

"How does that make me alone here?" - Well the guy who formerly agreed with you said you should move on because the SPI was turned down. Noorullah (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

And lastly... where is there a shred of evidence of me and @MrGreen1163 having ever worked together? As pointed out by other users, we've actually only gotten on disagreements on Wikipedia. Noorullah (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• What happens off-wiki, especially on Discord, is not an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem" requiring an ANI thread. If there's an honest belief of meatpuppetry or other organized "brigading" (for want of a better term), either WP:SPI or Arbcomm would seem to be more appropriate venues. As an aside, the OP's signature makes me raise an eyebrow, as it has no visible conenction to their username. While it's true that there is no policy against that, it's still not a very good practice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  And there was a raised SPI (as linked by OP), which got dismissed for lack of evidence without even the need for a checkuser, even though I adamantly said I was fine with one. (Which I still am). Noorullah (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have changed my signature and made it similar to my username even if there's no policy against it. I guess that'll do for now (hope I don't get anymore unnecessary boomerangs). Heraklios 16:37, 19 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.

PapaRoachLover1994 and Slovakian IPs involved in date-changing disruption

• PapaRoachLover1994 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 195.91.5.168 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 195.91.8.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.99.172.143 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.102.103.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.102.237.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 178.23.88.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

PapaRoachLover1994 has been changing music release dates to their own wrong version based on incomprehension of how the music industry works. For instance, PapaRoachLover1994 has conflated release date with the first date a music release appears in a national sales chart, which is a different date. In this effort, PapaRoachLover1994 has been violating WP:MULTIPLE by using a bunch of IPs from Slovakia to do the same thing, edit-warring to push their preferred version.

The connection between the IPs and the username is established in several ways. First, Slovakian IP 195.91.8.209 responded on the talk page of Slovakian IP User talk:78.99.172.143, challenging a warning delivered by FlightTime. At the Chapter V (Staind album) page, the registered user made some date changes[85] which were reverted by me, and soon afterward were restored by Slovakian IP.[86] This pattern also played out at Lift a Sail,[87][88] Congregation of the Damned,[89][90] Lovehatetragedy,[91][92] and more.

Note that the IPs were doing the same thing before the username PapaRoachLover1994 was registered on 2 February. 78.99.172.143 was active on 9 January. I suspect that this activity has been going on for months, after seeing date changes like these from earlier Slovakian IPs. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the IPs for a month (they have no other edits) and partially blocked PapaRoachLover1994 so they are unable to edit articles for a month. I left a message inviting them to respond here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ponnar Shankar - User:Minakshi Pillai

• Ponnar Shankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Minakshi Pillai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ponnar Shankar was initially created about Ponnar and Shankar, a story about two brothers. But now, it has since been completely rewritten and I believe is being used to promote a particular caste by User:Minakshi Pillai. They are already aware of CTOPS and have previously been blocked for personal attacks by User:Rosguill. They are also adding WP:OR to multiple articles that fall under WP:GSCASTE, including Arunattu Vellalar, Kodikaal Vellalar and Maruthanayagam Pillai, some of which have now been ECP'ed. We also have serious CIR issues, as they do not respond to warnings or participate in content dispute discussions, instead repeatedly engaging in edit warring on Ponnar Shankar. Requesting Ponnar Shankar be indefinitely ECP'ed and User:Minakshi Pillai be indefinitely blocked. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Jeraxmoira, at a glance it looks like the edit warring and lack of talk page engagement is clearly an issue and may be reason enough for sanctions if Minakshi Pillai does not quickly adjust their behavior, but the allegation that they are engaging in non-neutral promotion of a particular caste is not self-evident from what you have linked above. Please either provide clear diffs demonstrating such behavior, or retract that allegation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly this user has a bias against Vellalar and their intentions are very clear from this, this, this, this, this and the edit summary of this. I should probably reword it as degrading a particular set of castes rather than promoting one. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin/non-official user reply) I checked your summary, and it feels like you are absolutely right about this. edit

Rather than adding information relevant with sources that are reliable, they (User) have been editing with discrimination and hatred against a particular community. It can be well found in references that this community has suffered enough under caste discrimination prevalent in the region and their remarks "Kallar thief caste" in the edit summary proves the hatred which the user is not even trying to hide.

Admins should intervene immediately. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure about ECP, but I think Minakshi Pillai should be blocked. Capitals00 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I concur on a block, there's a serious CIR issue here. Responding to warnings with "k" and "ok" does not indicate that they're willing to collaborate in good faith. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please I do not want to get involved in all this, and I promise to collaborate with the mods in good faith. I have accepted. Minakshi Pillai (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Minakshi Pillai, don't edit articles that fall under Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, i.e, all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

user Qazqsxedc228800

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.

---

• Qazqsxedc228800 (talk · contribs)

Vandal. When I first encountered this editor, a majority of their edits had already been reverted, and I expected to see a final warning on their talk page. I gave them a final warning for this unexplained deletion of article content made with a misleading edit summary. They continued, making similar deletions with misleading summaries [93][94]. I reported them at AIV, where the entry timed out. I've been reviewing their edits, and found only a few that are neither vandalism or unreferenced changes in pov related to WP:CT/EE. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Indeffed No communication at all despite multiple warnings and messages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 20 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.

Albanian IP vandalism

• 79.106.124.128/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range of Albanian IPs has consistently tried to remove the same 20,000 or so bytes from List of Paramount Pictures films (2000–2009) over the past month (XTools list), alongside other disruptive edits. The majority of this range's edits dating back to October 2024 have been reverted, and many of the individual IPs have already been blocked previously. Some specific ones are listed below.

• 79.106.124.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.106.124.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously blocked)
• 79.106.124.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously blocked)
• 79.106.124.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.106.124.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.106.124.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously blocked)

(I previously posted this at WP:AIV, but it was removed after a few hours when no one acted on it). --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

IPs in this range are continuing to make the same changes to company details using dates in the future, all without sources cited: one, two, three, four, five. I found no news about "Happy Channel" planning to change its name back to "Euforia" in 2026. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Still going with unsourced changes that add events in the future: one, two Iiii I I I (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Either they have a Time Machine or they’re wrong. Turns out that /25 has been blocked in the past for one month. I’m blocking them from articles for 3 months, and in the block log, invited them to this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Bias and NOTHERE by Big Thumpus

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.

---

Big Thumpus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since being blocked for trolling and successfully appealing the block, Big Thumpus has demonstrated time and time again why the block should not have been lifted. Every edit they have ever made has been pushing a far-right agenda. At a discussion on WT:RS, Thumpus promoted the far-right conspiracy theory that all mainstream media outlets were funded by USAID to support the Democratic Party, and when the discussion was predictably WP:SNOW-closed, started a discussion to try to overturn the SNOW-closure. Simonm223 hit the nail on the head by commenting that Nearly all you've done since you joined Wikipedia is complain that sources, Wikipedia as a whole and other specific editors are biased against the US Republican party, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Most recently Thumpus edit-warred with Willondon on Oligarchy to remove a paragraph describing Elon Musk as an oligarch (Full disclosure: as I added those sentences, I suppose I am INVOLVED on that but so be it.) and then argued with Willondon and I on the article's talk page. A look at their xtools pie chart indicates a worrying sign of mainspace being fifth – a clear sign of an SPA. Thumpus does not seem to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for their RGW campaign to whitewash Wikipedia of negative coverage of Musk and Trump. I await administrator comment on this matter. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Well since I've been mentioned I might as well comment. I wasn't going to pursue AN/I about Big Thumpus largely because if I started AN/I tickets about every POV pusher in the AP2 topic area I'd never get anything else done. The best thing I can say about Big Thumpus is that they rarely edit in article space and so most of their disruption comes down to being frustrating to deal with at noticeboard and talk pages. Ultimately I think that they would benefit from a broad topic ban on AP2 to encourage them to engage with Wikipedia in a more productive way. I might also consider a WP:NOTHERE block as Big Thumpus contributes nothing significant to the project and is frustrating to collaborate with but, considering their edit history, these two actions might have the same net result anyway. I was not aware of them edit warring at Oligarchy but that would be, imo, an escalation of prior bad behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the Oligarchy topic I can see a good faith argument for removing the Musk information as it's very specific and RECENT for what is meant to be a very general topic article. No other section mentions a specific person so why is Musk specifically mentioned? Why not the various Russian oligarchs? Also, Chicdat, it appears that you were casting aspersions with this talk page comment, "You appear to be very clearly an SPA created to push Musk's POV.". True or not, that comment should not be made on an article talk page. While a lot of edits outside of mainspace may be POV pushing, it also could be an editor who is simply not engaging in edit warring. Based only on the evidence here I don't see that BT has done anything wrong and may be correct in terms of the Oligarchy article. Before anyone suggests I'm a Musk supporter, an editor previously suggested I shouldn't be allowed to !vote on Tesla topics due to my support for TSLAQ topics and Musk's actions here. BT isn't going to be a successful editor if they don't learn about sourcing etc but talk of AP2 bands at this point, given the evidence here is unwarranted. If there is more evidence my view may change but currently, based only on the USAID question and the questionable inclusion of Musk in a high level topic article, I don't see the issue. Springee (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:DUCK here, not aspersions. A review of Big Thumpus' edit history clearly indicates that they do little else. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. There is aspersion-casting and there is calling a spade a spade. Look at BT's contributions and tell me where my comment was incorrect. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Please review FOC. If you feel the need to identify editors as garden implements, do it on user talk pages or here, not in the article space. What you did in no way made your arguments stronger but it did increase the temperature in the discussion. This is especially true in cases where the material you added can reasonably be viewed as POINTY. Springee (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

By your argument, thousands of administrators have casted aspersions by adding the {{spa}} template to a talk page, which is commenting on the contributor. Nevertheless, as you have been here for 17 years and have hundreds of edits on extremely controversial talk pages, I will defer to your judgement and drop the stick. Clearly you've encountered SPAs before and know how to deal with them. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Tagging an edit on the talk page as SPA is one thing. Accusing editors of pushing a Musk POV moves past that. Also, the tag generally helps when dealing with RfC where a lot of !votes might be accounts that are recruited etc. Dismissing a reasonable argument with SPA is likely to upset the editor in question. Heck, I would be personally very insulted if someone accused me of carrying water for Musk! :D Springee (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw this edit last week and thought "well, there's an editor who is going to be disappointed with the outcome". However; 196 edits, and of those only 11 to mainspace, and most of those are either reverts or have been reverted since. I'm pretty sure that I've lost some IQ points reading the WP:IDHT arguing at WT:RS and WP:NPOVN. That, with the additional of negligible useful content, is by definition heading towards WP:NOTHERE territory, and BT would be well advised to not continue on that course. Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see a problem with lifting the block. The original block was for sockpuppetry, not trolling, and I don't think that was demonstrated. It may well be appropriate to institute a topic ban or a community-sanctioned block for behaviour, but that's a different matter. --Yamla (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think we're dealing with the unfortunate result of a poorly structured block. A block for trolling might have been preferable but what we got was a block for socking from an editor who, despite their issues, appears not to be a sock. However I do think, if other editors are reaching the end of their patience with Big Thumpus too, that it's time to take some action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to let this play out as it may, but I think jumping right to accusing people of being SPA's when they haven't been editing the encyclopedia for a significant amount of time is hasty. If anyone cares to fully peruse my edit history they might find that I've made some oddball edits to random articles and even started a draft of a mainspace article. Plenty of editors here engage within a certain topic area for some time, because it's prominent in the news or some other reason, and then go on to do the same within another topic.

I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia articles and genuinely think everyone has done a great job in most areas, so of course sometimes it's hard to find anything to edit.

I will also add that I've tried my best to WP:DISENGAGE when other editors express strong disagreement, especially when said editors seem to have a history of bringing people to ANI or at least threaten to. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think jumping right to accusing people of being SPA's when they haven't been editing the encyclopedia for a significant amount of time is hasty is a carefully-crafted non-denial. Zaathras (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say. Do I need to explicitly state I am not an SPA to be taken seriously? Big Thumpus (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No, you need to stop being disruptive at places like Wikipedia Talk:RS and edit somewhere that isn't the AP2 CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The only way I would take you seriously is if you said "I am a SPA" because that would demonstrate some self awareness... You do appear to be a single purpose editor focused on a very narrow subset of contemporary American politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

BT, that you are here means you are probably not handling things in a way that will work over the long term. Based on the originally presented evidence I don't see a than being reasonable. However, it would be best to listen to the concerns as well as see how others work in contentious spaces. Your views, right or wrong, are going to make you a minority on many Wikipedia topics. I would suggest looking to see how other editors are effective in such cases. Springee (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree outright but I also think it's fair to note the history of who started this thread. Wikipedia undeniably has some issues with how contentious topics are handled and I think it's critically important that majority voices are not constantly lobbying to have minority voices restricted or banned from participation. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Your concern is valid but if people are talking tbans you are likely not handling it in a way that will work in the end. If you want to make an impact on various topics, vs just getting voted off the island, you need to stay cool, bring evidence (typically RSs) and rational arguments. If you run into a wall such as what you are seeing at Oligarchy, don't edit war, don't personalize it. Make your best case on the talk page. Sometimes you won't convince people even when you are "right". I'm those cases you can decide to accept it or use the various dispute resolution tools. The RfC is a powerful one. It's not uncommon that a local consensus is overturned when a RfC gets uninvolved editors to weigh in. It's also, typically, more definitely as an involved party assesses the consensus on the end. It is frustrating when others sign motives to your actions that aren't true to your intent but don't personalize things. FOC is always a good rule. Springee (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand, and I appreciate your thoughtful input. I will do my best to abide by it. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't see a than being reasonable at this time. However that doesn't mean carry on as is. Springee (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

“It’s hard to find anything to edit”? I can point you to a forkton of national/regional cuisine articles that need all the help you’re able to give them. It would be a blessing just to have somebody make low-hanging MOS:CAPS corrections of food names (which shouldn’t be capitalized except for particular words that are proper nouns in their own right, like place names [“Kansas City barbecue”; “Teochew dumplings”] and individual humans’ names [“oysters Rockefeller”; “peach Melba”]) THOSE would be much-appreciated, collaborative improvements to article space to make a better worldwide encyclopedia. I am pretty sure that more people use Wikipedia to learn the difference between tom yum and tom kha on a Thai restaurant take-out menu than as a source for winkling out the nuances of American political bickering points. — Julietdeltalima (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion - very much appreciated Big Thumpus (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

There's really big gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesian history if you're interested, especially outside of Java and Sumatra Kowal2701 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Orr if you're interested, there is a shortage of editors working on articles about Yemen and I would really appreciate your help (We're like 4 editors and half of us haven't edited for months now) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

While we're making suggestions, more than one third of Wikipedia articles are still stubs. There's loads and loads to do! Category:All stub articles contains every single one, but there are links on that page that go to categories sorted by topic, if there's a particular set that would interest you. -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen Asilvering Kowal2701 Also very interesting suggestions - thanks everyone! I wasn't aware of Category:All stub articles, that's handy. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add to this that yesterday, NME Frigate started a discussion at Talk:Elon_Musk#Should_Musk's_juvenile_antics_be_mentioned? about, well, adding Elon Musk's juvenile antics to his article. Big Thumpus responded with an ad hominem attack on the user's perceived bias, and responded to me pointing that out by saying they AGF while demonstrating that they don't. I started a discussion at User talk:Big Thumpus#Editorial bias and they show no sign of acknowledging this problem, continuing to malign RS. I believe that, at best, this user needs some mentoring. If that doesn't work, a topic ban from AP2 might be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I think an AP2 topic-ban is clearly called for. Some of the issues with them include:

• Blatant misuse of sources. See [95], where they take a source that overtly says that the conspiracy theory they were pushing in that discussion (that news sources were being funded by USAID specifically to defend and push the interests of one American political party over another) was false, and tried to present it as evidence that it was true. Note that the "sheepish correction" they talk about is this: While Politico LLC did receive funds from USAID and other government agencies, the money was not for grants but payment for subscriptions to its publications. The article is extremely clear, so there is no plausible way to interpret this, in good faith, as supporting Big Thumpus' position; their usage was a gross and clearly deliberate distortion of the source in promotion of a conspiracy theory.
• Constant aspersions towards other editors. They try to word these in a "friendly" manner (clearly aiming for WP:CIVILPOV) but they've nonetheless constantly crossed the line, regularly questioning the motivations of other editors by implying that they're being driven by personal beliefs. These include [96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]
• Clearly non-neutral approaches to the article and sources. [104][105][106] Stuff that may have seemed meaningful in the lead up to the election, but after Trump's win feels more like sour grapes and mudslinging. Or this and this, arguing that the Associated Press platformed opinions-as-news that many would consider "far left" or at least directly serving the interests of politicians considered to be "far left" and saying they should not be used in a neutral encyclopedia. Characterizing the Associated Press as supporting the far left and saying it ought to be unusable as a source, in particular, is so bizarre that I feel it breaches the presumption of good faith - either it's trolling, WP:POVPUSH efforts to shift the overton window without regard for sourcing, or represents a WP:COMPETENCE issue so severe as to be indistinguishable from these things.
• Attempted canvassing: [107][108]; note that the only editors they replied to in this way were ones who agreed with them.
• Extreme bludgeoning; especially when it came to the discussion of NPOV templates on the 2024 US Election article, they made countless comments that were essentially the same two or three arguments over and over with almost no variation, even after being repeatedly informed that the discussion was already well-past the point of being a WP:DEADHORSE: [109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126] ...and more. Note that all of this is a single dispute over a single NPOV template on a single article, where the presence or absence of the template has already been discussed to death for months prior. Further bludgeoning can be seen in the multiple reliable sources discussions discussed above, including one where they suggested that we should reweigh our entire spectrum of sourcing based solely on the above conspiracy theory: [127][128]. They proceeded to drag these obviously unproductive discussions out further by objecting when they were eventually hatted: [129] A refusal to drop anything, in any context, unless they're directly forced to do so is characteristic of almost all of Big Thumpus' editing in the topic area.

These are not the sorts of things that the AP2 topic area needs right now. --Aquillion (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• I’ll note that in my interactions with Big Thumpus I’ve found him well reasoned and relatively civil. Sorry but the accusations of far-right and NOTHERE are complete jokes unless there’s a lot I’m not aware of. He has bias, sure, but so does every single user here. Technically we’re supposed to all be individually NPOV but that isn’t always feasible and having people of different POVs collaborate is an important step towards NPOV. My advice to him would be to find something that interests him outside of high traffic American political articles and contribute to that and the mainspace . See Talk:Donald Trump/Article bias forum if you still doubt whether he’s HERE. A topic ban is uncalled for imo

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Big Thumpus isn't being discussed at this board for being a conservative. They're being discussed at this board because of their POV pushing, refusal to drop the stick and competence issues. Basically they're wasting a lot of peoples' time and are frustrating to edit with. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And their main contribution to that "article bias forum" that I found was a WP:CRYSTAL claim that academic sources in 50 years would vindicate their POV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not at all their “main contribution”?? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I discounted the several suggestions of imposing a 6 month lag on Wikipedia reporting anything Trump does as being entirely in the wrong place for a discussion of article bias. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose if it had been my time he’d wasted I would’ve had less sympathy. Agreed the status quo is untenable. Maybe at most a temporary topic ban and a stated commitment to mainspace editing? I still think this report is a bit of a joke Kowal2701 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The accusations of time wasting confuse me a bit because WP:DISENGAGE exists. I'm genuinely sorry if other editors don't enjoy working with me, and my goal is to collaborate, but there's no obligation to engage with me or a deadline to meet in order to end a discussion. I've seen a lot of discussions on Wikipedia carry on for months or even years; most of my concerns have revolved around WP:RECENT and I really do think there's a chance that the people who disagree with me now may have a different opinion at some point, but it might take years. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a circumstance under which I would bend WP:RS policy to the whims of any American governmental administration. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not what I was suggesting - but I wanted to discuss it with you and others over there, not on ANI. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Then what's this? [130] Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ignore your question but - is this the best venue to discuss it? I'm genuinely asking. I want to discuss it in good faith, which is why I started that thread on the talk page of RS. I didn't think it would receive such immediate backlash; I wouldn't have started it otherwise. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from American politics and current events, broadly construed. The very first thing mentioned here, about starting a discussion claiming that a US government agency was funding left-wing media in the USA to attack the Republicans political parties is just so over the top and absurd, that there's clearly personal issues here that make it impossible to rationally edit in this topic area. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I feel strongly that that is an oversimplification of my concern Big Thumpus (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  And yet, the description fits, in a nutshell. Such a suggestion is so completely beyond reality that I think that you need to step back and deal with your issues. Or at least stick to other areas. Have you considered WP:LACROSSE? They always need help. Nfitz (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  But it's not what I said, though. I did not say "left-wing media" or "Republicans", and that was purposeful because I would approach the situation similarly regardless of the political tilt. Thank you for the WP:LACROSSE suggestion though, I hadn't seen that. I used to play so maybe I can help. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's fair - I've adjusted my text accordingly - and I note in one example you showed (which didn't seem to show any US agency involvement) you highlighted media supporting right-wingers such as Cheney. Still the right or left isn't the issue here. It's the wild and very unusual claim you made in the first place that appears to be more a personal conspiracy theory than any sourced fact! Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban don't know what else to say. Do I need to explicitly state I am not an SPA to be taken seriously I'm going to paraphrase Rob McClenon here and say "Then stop acting like one". Regardless of the merit of the prior block and unblok, Big Thumpus is being entirely disruptive. There are many fora in which they're welcome to discuss their opinions on US Aid, Trump, Musk et al. This is not one of them as it's disruptive. Star Mississippi 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, this sort of conspiracy theory trolling [131] is just too wild. Hopefully they can contribute in a more productive way in other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• It is perfectly reasonable to argue that Elon Musk shouldn't be mentioned on the Oligarchy article. That's really not problematic behavior. Oppose the topic ban proposal that's emerged, but he should consider himself warned not to do stuff like raising that silly RS discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, given the comments from Big Thumpus below regarding hounding. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I asked an editor if they can assure me that they won't hound me, because I feel hounded. Can I not express that feeling?? This is a genuine question. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban because of the hounding comment 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per ROPE. BT probably feels rather attacked right now and that is a great way to trigger an editor into making bad choices. That said, BT, if you want to continue in this topic space I would suggest you publicly commit to 3 things. 1. You will WP:FOC and strictly refrain from ascribing motives to other editors. That means no suggestions that someone is motivated by anything other than improving the article content. For example, it's one thing to, politely, suggest a particular edit would make an article appear like an attack article. It's quite another to suggest that was an editor's intent. 2. You will bring RS evidence to support your views/concerns. Take the recent USAID thing. Having a source for your concern may have been helpful. If you weren't able to find a source then it's a good sign this may be a nothing burger. 3. No edit warring. If your edit/reversion gets rejected you can use the talk page but you won't restore a disputed edit. If you agree to those things, which shouldn't affect your ability to argue a POV then I think any tban would be punitive vs preventative. If you don't think you can't stick to those rules then I can see the preventative argument. Springee (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I can 100% agree to those things and understand the community's concerns Big Thumpus (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This may be the way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Would support this as well as a last chance if @Big Thumpus willing to comply. Star Mississippi 21:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ditto Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like it could curb the disruptive editing with the understanding that it is their last chance. I support. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If Big Thumpus is to be given WP:ROPE they need to understand that it will be a very short rope and that, if they continue to be disruptive regarding Musk-derived conspiracy theories about WP:RS standards that a block will be the outcome. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, can I have your assurance that you aren't going to WP:HOUND me going forward? I understand that you and I do not agree on certain things, and I very much want to discuss those things with you in good faith, but I do not appreciate continued insinuations that I am a peddler of conspiracy theories. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

My concern is with your disruptive editing. Please do not cast aspersions. I certainly have not hounded you. Statements like this make me fear we may be back here in short order if you continue editing disruptively at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Your requests that we adjust what we consider a reliable source based on the statements of Mr. Musk were beyond the pale. I am not entirely comfortable with you getting any WP:ROPE at all if I'm being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Are my feelings of being hounded by you invalid? Big Thumpus (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on this reply I continue to Support a topic ban an do not believe WP:ROPE is appropriate in this instance. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. I was willing to give WP:ROPE, but the continued aspersion-casting and accusations in your replies are deeply troubling. Where, in that reply, do you strictly refrain from ascribing motives to other editors? If you can't abide by your promises in this ANI, I certainly don't think you can do it on AP2 articles. I'm going to have to change my mind and support a topic ban. If you have truly improved your behavior after six months, it should be clear from your other contributions that you have done so. Consider it a chance to learn how to contribute constructively in other areas. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked a genuine question, because I feel genuinely hounded. I don't understand. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING has a very specific meaning - which, as you wikilinked to it, you should know. If you look at our edit history together you will note we've overlapped in very few places - Two of them - the page for Wikipedia Talk reliable sources and this page - are evident. I am a regular contributor to WP:NPOV/N and when you drill down you see that I did not edit on the same thread as you there. [132] On the other three pages we've both edited the distance between our closest edits is 5 days or more. Simply put I absolutely have not been following you around Wikipedia. As such your accusation of WP:HOUNDING is casting baseless aspersions. This is precisely the thing you promised not to do when you agreed to WP:FOC as a condition of a WP:ROPE decision. I was uncomfortable with WP:ROPE and was looking for assurances that you would also cease disruptive editing on the one page where we've come into conflict and you replied with a baseless accusation. I hope you find this answer detailed enough to explain why you got such a prompt and such a negative reaction to what you did. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats not a fun feeling, why do you feel hounded? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel hounded - maybe not according to the letter of WP:HOUND but at least by the dictionary definition - because Simon seems to be more determined to have me banned from a particular area of discussion than to actually discuss things with me. Practically everything I say is met with another accusation and call for action.

If I've agreed to the terms proposed by Springee, I think it's fair to ask for some reassurance that the editors who [strongly] disagree with me aren't going to take it upon themselves to police me from now on. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, that is the sort of comment that can make a new editor feel, right or wrong, attacked or at least being poked. Since agreeing at 20:06 13 Feb have they engaged in editing that is problematic? If no, then perhaps it's best to view this as a misunderstanding and move on. I will note that one can really dislike Musk while still feeling some of our coverage of the person is way over the top. Springee (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Stop with your conspiracy trolling and source misuse. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history it appears they have made no edits outside of this discussion since making a commitment to reform (see their 20:06, 13 February 2025 edit). Springee (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Tbh I think the lack of mainspace editing is a bigger issue. They seem to want to collaborate and engage in discussion a lot which is great, but most editors focus on mainspace and avoid discussion except only when it’s necessary, and aim to be concise and to the point in order to maximise the time they spend writing content i.e. in the mainspace. That is something that I think you can only really learn how to gauge through experience, so I’m sceptical of whether the above terms will mean we won’t arrive back here. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with that, many of the conflicts with Big Thumpus seem to come up when other editors are focusing on content and Big Thumpus wants to focus on the big (off-wiki) picture. I think its likely that if they did more mainspace editing then the quality of their talk page editing would improve, as it stands they have no idea what they're talking about because they've never done it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. @Big Thumpus, however this thread ends, I hope you will reconsider your approach on wikipedia. Everyone else is here to build an encyclopedia. You appear to be here to talk about building an encyclopedia, with the additional problem of having effectively no experience of the actual building part. Start building. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair warning and one TB should think about. I do understand that sometimes things like DUE are decided by trying to estimate the big picture vs what a particular source says. But focusing on adding non-controversial content while observing how editors work around controversial claims is a good idea. Springee (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, obv it’s a personal decision for them since it’s a bigger commitment. But tbh given their experiences here, especially the initial block and this thread, I wouldn’t expect them to particularly want to Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In all honesty, I am feeling pretty discouraged after that initial block and this thread. I feel genuinely uncomfortable expressing my concerns with NPOV/RS/editor conduct etc. which is a shame because those are fundamental aspects of the project and very much deserving of open-minded discussion. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You've been editing here for 2.5 months and made just over 200 edits, of which 11 seem to have been to articles; I don't think you should be giving lectures about what constitute "fundamental aspects of the project". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

...Do you disagree that NPOV, RS and editor conduct are fundamental aspects of the project..?

This is what I'm talking about, though. I can't even express what should be a pretty mild take without someone showing up to malign me. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that people who have nearly 0 experience in improving wikipedia are poor judges of the meaning and salience of our policies, and should not be lecturing other editors about their meaning, importance, or application (either in particular instances or in general). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting application of the word "lecturing" Big Thumpus (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus you are not helping your case here at all. I highly recommend disengaging and letting consensus form. Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

BT, the IP is right in that you haven't been here long so it's best to get a feel for how people effectively make arguments. It's not surprising that you feel discouraged. Wikipedia is the sort of place where swimming against the stream, especially in a contentious topic area, is likely to get you swatted if you don't strictly follow the written (and sometimes unwritten) rules. That said, one of the important skills (and one that's not easy to master for some) is knowing when to disengage. Those who say your comments here aren't helping your case have a point. So long as the comments stay here (and aren't attacking other editors) and your article/article talk page comments FOC then I don't think you have violated the commitment you have already made. If someone else shows up and says something negative about your editing, let it go. That will help show editors that you won't be defensive every time someone says something negative about your edits. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen, just don't feel you have to be defensive every time. Also, that initial block appears to have been an error since the analysis showed that you were not using multiple accounts (generally that's a no-no). Given that the sock puppet account (not to be confused with wp:SPA) block was found to be invalid, you have nothing to be sorry about. It was an error. Just keep your nose clean going forward. Springee (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban per Chicdat above, will give BT the opportunity to demonstrate that they're not an SPA by constructive editing in other areas. Brunton (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban - Their accusation of hounding after agreeing to a compromise nails it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Each year a handful of editors of the same archetype flit through the Politics topic area. They're aggressively strident about the side they support, how most of the reliable sources vetted at WP:RSP are biased, and set out to fire broadsides at the Wikipedia as a whole when their suggestions are rejected. This is just the latest that, after looking at the diffs above, we're better off without. Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please see the part about vowing not to do it anymore. I think several of the recent supports missed this commitment [133] which BT has not broken. Again, preventative is the only acceptable reason for a Tban and thus far BT hasn't violated their promise. Springee (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  They broke the commitment to adhere to WP:FOC when they spuriously accused me of WP:HOUND. And nobody is asking for a block here. A topic ban from AP2 will give them the chance to demonstrate they can edit productively. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  What content is there to focus on in an ANI thread? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Feeling attacked by you and saying as much in this ANI thread isn't violating anything. They basically said they will be good. Other editors were taking at their word and all looked good. Then you came in and basically said they better not do more bad things and that they were preading conspiracy theories. Hell, I can understand why they might feel defensive at that point even though I don't believe that was your intent. As I said before, threads like this are very much a place where a new or even seasoned editor might feel attacked. When people get defensive they may not reply just as we want. It's long been understood that editors get a bit more latitude here vs places like the article talk space. I would suggest rather than implying future sins, we AGF and focus on the commitment they have made here which they can demonstrate going forward. If they break that commitment, then look at Tbans and the like. Springee (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  There no reason to assume good faith with this user and their promises when the history has been one of bad-faith editing. Boot them from the topic area, and they then have the opportunity to work their way back. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  That sounds like you want to punish them for something. What evidence do we have that they won't keep their words? It's not like we have a block history to fall back on (the evidence says they were incorrectly blocked as a sock). If they can't behave after promissing they understand the issues, well then I would agree there are grounds for a block. Springee (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  My own assessment, based on the stuff I outlined above, is that what they're attempting to do is WP:CIVILPOV / WP:BATTLEGROUND editing - ie. the points where they crossed the line are individually problematic, sure, but the real problem is that they all point to a sustained, deliberate effort to push the encyclopedia's POV in a particular direction while getting as close to the line as possible; the clear faux-polite tone when making obvious aspersions points to this, as does the aggressive efforts to push a POV here. None of the things you asked them to commit to would actually help with that core issue; furthermore, their replies since then make it overtly clear that they have no intention of changing their overall direction. Part of the core of their misconduct was the discussion that was overtly intended to push a conspiracy theory (note my evidence where they distorted the sourcing regarding it in a way that is hard to explain away as accidental) - yet above, after committing to do better, they denied it, saying but I do not appreciate continued insinuations that I am a peddler of conspiracy theories. The goal isn't to have them continue to do things like this and this but in a more civil way. And their replies to Simonm223 (which seem mostly focused on avoiding scrutiny from them going forwards, after they have supposedly admitted to misconduct and agreed to do better) are likewise alarming - someone who genuinely understood what they were doing wrong and wants to improve should recognize that the past mistakes they're admitting to means that there were issues worthy of attention in the past and that of course people are going to keep a closer eye on them afterwards to ensure that they actually adhere to their commitments. Their behavior and response, instead, gives the impression of someone who wants to continue to engage in WP:CIVILPOV behavior without receiving scrutiny. ([134][135][136][137]) as well as continued self-pity that makes it clear that they're not actually taking any of the criticisms to heart ([138][139][140]) - note that the latter one makes it clear that their intent after this is to dive straight back into the "NPOV concerns" where all their misconduct occurred; also note the same faux-polite tone while making obvious aspersions, which I identified as problematic above. The easiest way for them to dispel these concerns is to accept a topic ban and edit productively in other areas for a while and to appeal after that, establishing that at the very least they are not a WP:SPA and are not driven by some WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Wikipedia's content (something that, I think, it is reasonable to assume they currently are based on their edits to date and which none of the things you've asked them to commit to really address.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Understand that they have made no edits since making their pledge so you are being this view on just what they did in the past. Also, having a different POV is not a problem. It's arguably an asset since the quality of our articles generally improves with alternative views. The only issue is if they don't take no for an answer. While CPUSH is often cited by those who didn't like alternative views, This study suggests that having more views ultimately makes the articles better [141]. So long as they aren't disruptive it's OK that their POV is different than yours. Springee (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of the diffs in that are from their comments in this discussion after this edit - they managed to go straight back to battleground conduct and aspersions, aggressively accusing editors of hounding them just a day after supposedly agreeing that their previous editing had problems that would justify scrutiny, in violation of their commitment not to cast aspersions. This shows that the WP:CPUSH / WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in their earlier comments is something they intend to continue. My perspective is that you gave them WP:ROPE and they immediately hung themselves with it. I do not think that this can be excused simply because you believe that their perspective (which reflects one of the major American political parties and is one of the most common ones among editors in AP2) is an "alternative" one that we need more editors representing. Finally, while CPUSH is often cited by those who didn't like alternative views is an obvious aspersion on your part; I've demonstrated their civil POV-pushing and battleground approach to editing with extended diffs, I'm not pulling this out of nowhere. You should consider the alternative explanation that your own biases may be blinding you to how bad the larger pattern of this editor's conduct is. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No aspersions on my part. CPUSH is a gray area. Where is the line? As door the comments, again inside of an ANI where an editor may reasonably feel attacked (regardless of the good faith intent of other editors) we should understand and grant a bit of leeway so long as the behavior doesn't leave here. There is zero evidence they will fail to adhere to their commitment thus this become punitive. Springee (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they will adhere (such as positive editing in other topic areas since making the promise) and a history of non-compliance... You've gone too far here, the logical conclusion is that they will not be able to self police. Casting the aspersion that it is punitive just isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been editing since this thread started primarily because I'm busy in real life, but also because I thought that it might demonstrate my willingness to discuss this in good faith before going back to editing. I really am not feeling the AGF from the community at the moment. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

HEB, I'm not casting aspersions. If an editor says they won't do X and they aren't doing X then a block isn't preventative. Any block is a mix of punitive and preventative. If there is nothing to prevent then all we are left with is the punitive part no matter how small. Springee (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Springee you are beginning to WP:BLUDGEON here and it would probably be wise to step back now. Simonm223 (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Responding to an accusation of casting aspersions with a defense of oneself and explanation is not bludgeoning. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Its only punitive if we know that they won't do it in the future, the point is to prevent future disruption and we have nothing which indicates that this editor is able to edit in a manner which is not disruption. This is what makes your comments aspersions, there just isnt anything which could be read in good faith as punitive here... There is clearly a good chance that the disruption continues and pretending that there isn't is just insulting to the rest of us. Note that their only signficant edits since making that promise have been continuing to battleground American politics at Talk:Oligarchy... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

How is that Talk:Oligarchy comment problematic? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Are they not allowed to disagree with the inclusion? I don't see anything wrong with their specific objection and to be honest it appears the current discussion is a pair of editors for and a pair against. Rather than being evidence that problems will continue, their singular reply since making a pledge here [142] suggests they are taking it to heart. They are making a reasonable argument related to WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

HEB, agreed. Given their demonstrated disruption to date, why would we take a promise to self-police when we can formalise a TBAN which is enforceable and would definetly stop the disruption. If they really are hear to build an encyclopedia then they can edit outside the topic area and presuming they have a good editing/track record after 6 months it would be hard to immagine a request to remove the TBAN at WP:AN not being successful. TarnishedPath^talk 23:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per the diffs detailed by Aquillion. The topic area doesn't need any more heat. TarnishedPath^talk 12:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN Competence is required and this editor hasn't shown any. Let's end the time sink until this editor has shown themselves capable of constructive contributions. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - Aquillion says it best User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:57, 19 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.

Long term disruptive SPA

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.

---

Love.potion1021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long term disruptive SPA who is dedicated to add promotional content to Twinkle Khanna, and is always waging a never ending edit war. Dympies (talk) 05:34, 20 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 editor is violating WP:FAIT and not participating in 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.

---

An editor @CommonKnowledgeCreator has copy pasted below text ( similar ) into at-least 100 articles. Editor has not participated in the discussion.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Daily&diff=prev&oldid=1270307767

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Internet_Information_Center&diff=prev&oldid=1270458534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TVB_Jade&diff=prev&oldid=1270521962

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Media_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1270307086

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oriental_Sports_Daily&diff=prev&oldid=1270461804

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_France&diff=prev&oldid=1269532532

and more

An discussion is open here and editors agree indiscriminate coping of this text violates WP:FAIT Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

It could also violate NPOV AND WP:DUE Astropulse (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with these edits. The source is an academic source working in a university and the inclusions are only like 1.5 lines of text. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And if a significant rollback is required (which I doubt) this seems like the sort of edit pattern that Twinkle was pretty much designed for so I don't see that WP:FAIT is applicable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Editor has not participated in the discussion. It looks like this editor was never notified on their User talk page about a discussion at RSN but has discussed this source on their talk page, User talk:CommonKnowledgeCreator#Media and Journalism Research Center rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Astropulse with you also opening a discussion at WP:NPOV/N here you have started threads about these edits at three different noticeboards. This looks like pretty obvious forum shopping but I'm still unclear why you're so put out by this series of edits. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 20 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.

Pointy Rm at Talk:Iranian revolution#Requested move 18 February 2025

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.

---

Plumber opened the subject RM to overturn the consensus at Talk:Iranian revolution#Requested move 12 September 2024. In their nomination, they refer to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCCAPS and WP:NPOV. They give no substantive argument as to how NPOV or COMMONNAME applies here such as to overturn the previous consensus or how NCCAPS has not already been considered. They allude to "evidence" in sources but provide no actual evidence. Relitigating the previous RM with no substantive case to overturn a recent explicit consensus appears to be tendentious.

Plumber also opened Talk:Syrian revolution#Requested move 14 February 2025 to overturn the consensus at Talk:Syrian revolution#Requested move 19 July 2023 making a similar argument without any substance.

Both articles are designated as CTops. Plumber has been made aware here subsequent to their opening these RMs. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

CCC. Both of those RMs are getting high levels of support. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get to report the RM opener. Recommend a speedy close and a reminder to FOC. Also, it appears you have been bludgeoning on Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• The location to discuss the argument for or against a requested move is at the RM discussion, not ANI. That's where you should put forward your best persuasive argument to convince other editors of your position. You shouldn't seek to shut down a discussion unless there is disruption going on or there is a problem with the RM request formation. And if a previous RM discussion was in 19 July 2023, I don't think it's not too soon for a subsequent discussion in February 2025. Consensus doesn't necessarily last forever.

And in both cases, this is a dispute over whether A letter in an article page title should be uppercase or lowercase. I don't think this touches on aspects of what makes a topic contentious. Of course, MOS purists might disagree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 20 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.

Disruptive editing from IP

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! I'm currently having an edit dispute with an IP user at the 2024–25 Asian Le Mans Series page. In summary: they are of the believe that Czech driver Dan Skocdople raced during the Abu Dhabi round, while in fact, Australian driver Griffin Peebles did. I've made a concise list with proof at the talk page, but to no avail. I'll add a short timeline of edits below:

• Edit 1: IP changes the page, showing that Skocdople raced instead of Peebles.
• Edit 2: I reverted IP's changes, stating that Peebles is shown on the timing sheets.
• Edit 3: IP then reverts my edit, once again stating that Skocdople raced.
• Edit 4: I state that I have made a list of proofs at the talk page, and revert IP's edit.
• Edit 5: IP reverts my edit AGAIN, seemingly without checking the talk page, reusing the same argument as before: 'Stated by DailySportsCar'. This is in reference to this article, which does state that Dan Skočdopole replaces Griffin Peebles, as that was shown on the entry list at that moment. However, the entry list was later updated.
• Edit 6: I then once again revert, slightly annoyed because IP does not seem to change their mind on the matter.
• Edit 7: This is the current revision as I'm typing this, where IP once again reverted, stating that 'Dailysportscar has reported it'.

I know it's a 1-on-1 edit dispute, but I hope something can be done against this as it is infuriating that my edits keep getting reverted, even though I've provided multiple proofs.

I will leave the page as is for now to ensure the edit war won't escalate. I don't know what the proper action is in this case; is something like an IP editor ban (even if temporarily) possible? I feel like the list of proof I've given in the article's talk page is more than enough to show that IP is reverting on false claims. If any additional info is required, please let me know. Thanks. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@SportscarFan2004: (1) You got reverted after you started a discussion on the article's talk page and (2) if those anonymous editors are all the same person, a block won't make a difference since they can just hop to another IP. Those two factors this mean that article is very ripe for semiprotection, which locks new and anonymous editors out from changing it. The place to request that is the requests for page protection noticeboard although it's not a problem at all that you came here. Anonymous editors who game the rules against edit warring by switching IPs are pretty common so the next time you encounter one, Edit 5 is where you should step away from the article and state your case at RFPP. City of Silver 23:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for the answer! SportscarFan2004 (talk) 23:05, 19 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.

WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:PA by Cerium4B

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.

---

• Cerium4B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting this concerning user who is not WP:AGF and is continuously showing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, along with threatening [143] another user by falsely accusing them of a WP:3RR violation and casting aspersions [144] by saying: Maybe you didn’t even notice what article that was. Honestly, I haven’t seen such carelessness from any editor on Wikipedia since I joined., which is just unacceptable. They've also been removing warnings [145][146] and then placing revenge warnings [147]. On top of that, they refuse to acknowledge their content blanking behavior [148], and this isn't even the first time they've been warned [149] or brought to admin attention [150]. Mr.Hanes Talk 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• The issue become a battleground because that user was reverting without checking what i have edited.[151],[152], finally he understood [153]
• As he reverted 5 times in that page ([154], [155], [156], [157], [158] Out of these, 4 were my edits & 1 was theirs). So I don’t think saying it is very threatening

  You’ve violated WP:3RR. I am suggesting you to restore all of my edits before I report you for violating the three revert rule

  Why did they performed 5 reverts in a single page? In his talk page It’s highlighted that he is an experienced editor, shouldn’t he be aware of WP:3RR?
• We met after contributing on article related to Myanmar. But he gave me notice about “Introduction to contentious topics about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan” [159], is it logical? Why didn’t he noticed that article was not related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. So he is not careful again. That’s why I said

  Also your this warning is totally wrong. It’s used for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Maybe you didn’t even notice what article was that. Honestly, I haven’t seen such carelessness from any editor on Wikipedia since I’ve joined

• I removed his first warning and in edit summary i said

  Please add a new topic

  I asked him to add a new topic about that, because he warned me in a previous discussion related to another user. I didnt think notifying that user would be a good idea!

so i asked him to add a new topic. But he reverted that too [160]. Then again I reverted that and said

I’ve requested you to add a new topic. Don’t notify other users that was a completed discussion. Also you are not careful. You are making mistakes

[161] Because I believed he again didn’t notice that I’ve requested him to add a new topic on that.

• As he violated WP:3RR, I’ve placed the 3RR warning. [162] It’s not a revenge warning.
• the article showed There were about 20 jews in Myanmar with a cn tag since September 2023. So I removed that section. Because I thought a individual section for Judaism was not necessary. And still believes that is not significant. That’s why i started a discussion on that article talkpage [163]
• Previous incident:

1. [164], the issue has been solved and yes it was my fault.
2. And this [165]? Please see that whole incident or edit history carefully!

— Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.Hanes, I noticed that you have reverted my edit on Islam in West Bengal, without explaining the reason or without any edit summary. [166]

Please explain me why have you done that. If that doesn’t create any issue on other articles like Hinduism in Saudi Arabia, why is that a issue if I add that to Islam in West Bengal??? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Cerium4B: The POV warrior

• Cerium4B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting serious concerns regarding WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, and WP:PA violations by this editor. They've been blatantly pushing their certain POV by adding unsourced content to 2002 Gujarat riots ([167] [168] [169] [170]) and Violence against Muslims in independent India ([171] [172]), both of which are contentious topics. Thankfully, their edits were later reverted by Ratnahastin ([173] [174] [175]). They've also been blanking content with vague and misleading edit summaries, like at Sheikh Mujibur Rahman ([176]), where they justified the removal with: People of Bangladesh haven’t accepted this., which is just a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At Hinduism by country, they kept removing content with the excuse Unnecessary data ([177] [178]). Thankfully, their repeated attempts to push a particular POV were reverted yet again ([179] [180]). It doesn't stop there—they also tried adding POV-ridden honorifics at Islam ([181]), which got reverted ([182]), and made generic, non-consensus changes ([183]), which were reverted yet again ([184]). Another instance of them inserting unsourced, controversial content was at Lawrence Bishnoi ([185]), which, unsurprisingly, was later reverted. Their disruption extends to Dhaka–Bhanga Expressway ([186]), where the page has basically been hijacked with POV-driven additions and removals. They've also been issuing unwarranted warnings ([187]) without addressing the concerns raised by Worldbruce at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur. Instead of engaging in constructive discussion, they’ve made racial remarks ([188]), saying: The Kaler Kantho just a small local newspaper? 😂 Honestly, I believe Wikipedia should restrict foreigners from editing articles related to other countries. They ignored Liz's warning and kept posting nonsense ([189]), further showing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: @Liz Actually, I am talking about @Speederzzz. He is from the Netherlands. He said that Kaler Kantho is a small local newspaper, but it is a national newspaper in Bangladesh. Given the extent of their POV-pushing and disruptive behavior, they shouldn't be allowed to edit in the article namespace anymore. At the very least, a partial block is necessary, but considering their poor discussion habits, an indefinite block might be the only real solution. Koshuri ^(グ) 17:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan, What do you want to prove with these? These are my early edits after joining Wikipedia. Back then, I made many mistakes because I didn’t know Wikipedia’s policies.

However,

• what is unsourced about the 2002 Gujarat riots? The information about the deaths of Muslims and Hindus is still present in the article. I tried to highlight them, which I shouldn’t have done!
• [190], Sadly, the images have been deleted, so I can’t comment on what they contained. Based on my edit summary [191] i think the image contained some information.
• [192] At the time, I wasn’t familiar with WP:MOS
• [193], I added relevant content with sources, but another user reverted it. I thought he was more experienced So I didn’t engage in re-adding or edit wars over these changes because I knew I had no understanding of Wp:policies.
• [194] What’s wrong with it? Isn’t he a terrorist-gangster?news Or do u want citations in short description?
• [195]DO u have any idea about this article? check news
• [196] Here, I was overly rude when the most famous “school and college” of North Bangladesh was nominated for deletion. I reacted that way because I didn’t understand how Wikipedia works. I didn’t even know Wikipedia has admins 😆. However, I’m still upset with Worldbruce for nominating that article for deletion. But nowadays, if I need help, I ask Worldbruce or mention him for review.

Now, I’m much more familiar with Wikipedia’s policies.

But I don’t understand why you’re digging up these controversial edits. It’s normal for new editors not to edit like admins right after joining. I think even admins made mistakes when they first started.

I hope in future I’ll be an admin.😎

Now,
undoubtedly, I still make mistakes.

• But if anyone checks my edit count or general statistics—https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Cerium4B —you’ll see that 97.4% of my edits are live, and only 2.6% have been deleted.
• If anyone look at your general statistics—https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Koshuri_Sultan —only 67.7% of your edits are live. That means most of your edits (32.8%) have been reverted, compared to mine.

You are just harassing me here. I was about to create an article when I got this notification. More than an hour has been wasted defending myself against your report. I don’t know what you’re focused on, but please stop doing this to other users.
I just noticed that you were blocked for more than 200 days and recently got unblocked.
If any admin sees my reply, Im asking for a block on Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again for - randomly, intentionally harassing a Wikipedian. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, when Koshuri Sultan's name was Based Kashmiri, I believe he was blocked for sockpuppetry. Especially given your own history, Koshuri, I don't think it's fair to go way back into an editor's contributions to find mistakes when they were just learning about how Wikipedia works. Let's focus on recent edits from the beginning of 2025 (which I think some of these are). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right, Liz. I have learned from my past mistakes, which I can proudly say. But after taking a good look at Cerium4B's newer edits, which I just saw in the existed ANI above, it's quite clear that they are not leaving their past behind. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

What have you seen in the above ANI report?

When I explained him the issue [197],

he himself tried to delete his report [198]

check what have i explained above [199] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Good whataboutism. Unfortunately, this ANI isn't about me, and you've barely addressed the issue with a poor fauxpology. It's concerning that you want to greenlight your poor additions and disruptions just because they were made in the "past" (not that the newer edits are any better). That means you expect others to ignore your pretentious behavior and move on—but sorry, that's not how it works. Tracking your poor edits is nowhere close to harassment. You're only making your case worse. Please don't falsely accuse other editors of "involvement in harassment." Koshuri ^(グ) 04:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

[200] Your past is way worse than mine. (Disruption, vandalism, violation, edit wars, sockpuppetry, etc.) What if someone reports you for your past? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Uh again whataboutism, it's not helping you. Where do you see disruption, edit wars and vandalism in my past edits? In fact I have myself filed many SPIs and ANIs (I guess three) and in all I have a good strike rate (if we say informally), you don't need to waste your time in defaming me. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this ANI isn't about me

Just to be clear so you're aware in the future, when you report someone at ANI your own edits may be scrutinized per WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Apart from what has been cited here, I found Cerium4B to have falsified sources for adding false claims such as here where he claimed "film's portrayal of sensitive historical events, including the assassination of former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, has drawn criticism". It is not found in any of the source. It was removed after discussion and the rest of the content was already covered on the article. Cerium4B was not even present on the talk page. I believe a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA is justified. Capitals00 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Capitals00,

  • I haven’t falsified this, most probably Godi Media has changed their news. The news was like these -

  1. BBC News is covering everything [201](please translate)
  2. Also ckeck this news [202]

  • As i was not notified about that discussion, I had no participation…

  — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Indian Express is not a Godi media source. You clearly falsified that reference in this edit because it does not support your content. To say that you have to be notified of the talk page discussion even after you have significantly edited that article speaks of your irresponsible behavior. Koshuri ^(グ) 05:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Instead of judging what is Godi media, please review the news I’ve given. My contribution was based on news. If the news changes, I have nothing to do with that.

  Additionally, The Indian Express is not neutral enough on Bangladesh. check — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  How does it justify your falsification of the source? Your source for your claim is Chief Adviser's Press Wing Facts (Bangladesh). Now I am going to doubt your competence more than what I did before. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not sure if you r serious or joking with me here. According to the sources I provided above, you can check whether my additions to Emergency article was based on news or not. And later i have provided a news that proofs that Indian Express is not neutral on Bangladesh. Which is a type of godi media. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Cerium4B, I have some concern regarding your some recent edits. Could you please clarify why there is no need to mention this when the information is present in the citation? + could you explain why this is considered biased content as you claim while removing?
  I also wanted to know that why are you giving personal assumptions on an editor POV without solid evidence, as seen in your comment here : "So, Wikipedia should reflect your personal opinions now? You like Indians, so you left them out, and you have a problem with Bangladeshis, so you exaggerate their presence?" This isn't the way to do healthy discussion.
  And regarding this reply, could you clarify why you replied Done ✔️ after doing Keep vote if it wouldn’t be considered AfD vote canvassing? Well, I also voted on this and the article is nothing more than a promotional gebbrish. NXcrypto Message 10:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  @NXcrypto,

  First of all you should clarify why have you restored those edits. Anyone can see that those contributions are biased. (Requesting Admins to check this [203])

  what kind of reference is it that you restored [204]?????

  It is clear that the user deliberately exaggerated information about Bangladeshi nationals.

  If anyone checks the reference, the information about Bangladeshi nationals is not correct.

  You have not checked the edits or the citations, yet you have restored them. [205] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @Varoon2542: here who possibly added those census data and you ignored my query about vote canvassing. NXcrypto Message 13:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Niasoh notified me about that afd. After checking I replied him “Done ✔️“. Is it not allowed? And how is that a canvass? He had just notified me to check that. Did he ask me to make a keep vote on that afd?

  however, I didn’t know about wp:canvass, but when koshuri noted that, I checked but I don’t think It’s a canvass as he had just notified me to check.

  Moreover Niasoh did that to me, why are you questioning me about that? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pls don't make stories, you replied Done ✔️ after doing Keep vote on afd. NXcrypto Message 14:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is nothing to make any story on Wikipedia.

  1. On my talkpage Niasoh notified me about that afd.

  2. Then i have made some contribution to that article. edit history

  3. Then voted to keep the article

  4. then I replied “Done ✔️” to niasoh

  what is a makeup history? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:CANVASSING. Mr.Hanes Talk 15:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am highly unsatisfied with this reply. Why are you not accepting the fact that you did a canvassed vote on afd. NXcrypto Message 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am again saying that Niasoh notified me about that afd, After contributing to that article, i voted to keep the article. and then koshuri mentioned wp:canvassing, before that I didn’t have any idea about canvass.

  if niasoh made canvass, he should be questioned. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's one way to betray your friend 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Now you are pinging varoon, it’s Okay.

  but you haven’t answered my question. So it’s clear that you haven’t even checked what was that content and just hit the rollback button!

  which is a clear violation of WP:ROLLBACK — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the content was cited. There are some difference between rollback and undo. And that's was undo not rollback. NXcrypto Message 15:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  +I would like to clarify that I have never misused rollback. My rollback log, available here, shows that all my rollback actions were appropriate. Please avoid making false accusations against me. NXcrypto Message 15:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I didn’t know that rollback and undo options are much different. Both work same.

  However you haven’t clarified why have you restored that… — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  You said

  “I also wanted to know that why are you giving personal assumptions on an editor POV without solid evidence, as seen in your comment here : "So, Wikipedia should reflect your personal opinions now? You like Indians, so you left them out, and you have a problem with Bangladeshis, so you exaggerate their presence?" This isn't the way to do healthy discussion.”

  Why don’t you see the whole incident???????

  As varoon said these ([206], [207]), I said him those on the article talkpage with properly mentioning his comments.[208]

  I’m not explaining these to you anymore. You should check everything carefully. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't the only time when Cerium4B and Niasoh have canvassed together. Cerium4B has notified him to join discussions where Niasoh has never edited or participated before.

  • Cerium4B started a move request here and asked Niasoh to join the discussion [209], Niasoh voted in his favour and replied him Done [210]
  • Cerium4B also notified Niasoh to help him to support him when he got into dispute with Varoon2542 [211] (Note: Niasoh never edited that article before) Koshuri ^(グ) 16:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Previously I’ve said I didn’t have any idea of canvassing. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Umm... I wasn't aware that this thread was still active. As far as I know, I had pulled this ANI since the main issue was resolved through discussion, but then I saw Yamla reinstating it [212]. So, I guess I should be involved here again. Seeing the concerns raised by many users above, I have to say that Cerium's past contributions closely resemble their recent ones. They've also been found involved in WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING with their co. recently [213], and their discussion behavior has remained unchanged throughout their Wikipedia career. Mr.Hanes Talk 15:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  If there was a violation of wp:canvassing, isn’t it niasoh who violated it? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note that there was another section up the page regarding Cerium4B's editing. I have merged them so that discussion can be centralized, and at the more recent report as the old one was very further up the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Totally unexpected!

I have explained everything to you! [214]

now the admins will judge… — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea what is going on here. I see various confusing walls of text. Can you condense your complaint RE Cerium4B into 100 words, with links to diffs that clearly show misconduct? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Very well then @voorts, I'll try to summarise the whole drama in less than 100 words. Mr.Hanes Talk 18:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Cerium4B ANI (summarised)

Basically the user is being reported for persistent WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, and WP:PA, WP:CIR, WP:CANVASSING along with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Doing mass removals and additions (without consensus) [215][216] and on top of that removing warnings [217][218]. Casting aspersions and passing personal remarks: [219][220] [221][222][223][224][225]. Making blatant POV ridden edits: [226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233] all of which were later reverted. Falsifying sources [234]. canvassing, tagging and vote stacking: [235][236][237][238]. WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IDHT issues: [239][240][241][242]. Mr.Hanes Talk 19:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of these many, many diffs but just noting that there is nothing wrong with an editor removing a warning from their User talk page. It's surprising how often this comes up here when it is perfectly okay behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

As someone who sometimes includes this information in an ANI report, it's not that I think it's problematic behavior but an indicator that they've 100% seen the ANI thread and choose to distance themselves away from the thread by removing it. It's just something to note that could mean something. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This is still not helpful. Please provide recent diffs, not old ones, showing Cerium4B making problematic edits and then not accepting constructive feedback from other editors. Also explain the conflict. it's hard to reconstruct things when you say that Cerium4B is misrepresenting sources, and then you just link to a diff of adding a new section to an article; I'm not going to dig through sources to figure out what Cerium may or may not have misrepresented. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I opened a random selection of diffs from the above, and every single one was either a) from October of last year, or b) a complete nothingburger. If you can show, for each category of behaviour you'd like admins to investigate, diffs of 1) the unacceptable behaviour, 2) someone explaining why that behaviour is not acceptable, and 3) the behaviour continuing after that explanation, we'll be able to do something. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Voorts and Asilvering. Fewer diffs (you only need, I'd say, 3-6 is sufficient), but recent ones and relevant to the argument you are making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz and Asilvering: Upon further investigation into their recent contributions, I'm seeing a pattern of making undiscussed page moves citing vague assertions of their desired title being the common name and if not WP:OFFICIALNAME. On 16 January they went on a frenzy renaming institutions, places named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his daughter Sheikh Hasina to what they called "official" and "common names" after interim Bangladesh government had renamed them, although no discussion was done to determine whether they were common names as WP:OFFICIALNAME makes it clear that we do not just rename titles of article when a newly formed government changes them on whim.

• Sheikh Hasina University was moved to Netrokona University [243] citing this link after Bangladesh government had renamed the University.
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman University, Kishoreganj was moved to Kishoreganj University with the same rationale [244]
• Mujibnagar University was moved to Meherpur University same as above [245]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman University, Naogaon was moved to Naogaon University [246]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University was moved to Gazipur Agricultural University [247]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Shariatpur Agriculture University was moved to Shariatpur Agriculture University [248]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Digital University was moved to Bangladesh Digital University [249]
• Bangamata Sheikh Fojilatunnesa Mujib Science and Technology University was moved to Jamalpur Science and Technology University [250]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Pirojpur was moved to Pirojpur Science and Technology University [251]
• Jatir Pita Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Narayanganj was moved to Narayanganj Science and Technology University [252]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University was moved to Gopalganj Science and Technology University [253]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University was moved to Maritime University Bangladesh [254]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Aviation and Aerospace University was moved to Aviation and Aerospace University Bangladesh [255]
• Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College was moved to Bogra Medical College then to Bogura Medical College and then it was redirected to Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College[256] all of this was fixed by @Utopes: [257]
• Gangachara Sheikh Hasina Bridge was moved to Gangachara Bridge, Rangpur [258]
• Bangabandhu Aeronautical Centre was moved to Bangladesh Aeronautical Centre [259]
• On 21 January,they moved Bangabandhu Island to Putney Island [260] citing a link to a reference entry at the Library of Congress [261] while calling it the common name.
• Their recent mainspace edits have also been disruptive, on 24 January they inserted POV AI generated content into the article which apparently contained falsification of the source material.[262] [263]. Their response to these concerns right above from 8 February only speaks of their lack of collaborative approach. I think a topic ban from ARBIPA is justified. NXcrypto Message 13:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, as I’ve the right to move a page, i moved those according to the official change. Where discussion was needed i did a move discussion.
  These institutions were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members during her authoritarian regime. These names were totally confusing. We used to call the universities according to their District name, which are their present name.
  As the government neutralised the name of those universities, I changed them on Wikipedia. Before the official change, I didn’t do anything. Also the same thing did to other articles.
  Even today, the government has changed names of 11 more institutions which were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members. [264]
• Emergency movie: Yes, that was partially Ai generated. I used Chatgpt to complete the citations. And Chatgpt modified my speech. However using Ai to make contributions is not a violation. Using Ai is discouraged in discussion, As far as I know.
  You are continuously accusing me of content falsification. But I have provided other news, one from BBC. If you check that you will understand that my contribution was based on news. And I believe that Indian express has changed their news. The movie was made by a political leader of the ruling party of India. So it’s not impossible to see a news alteration by godi media.

— Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You moved them citing "official and common name", there is no requirement on Wikipedia that we must use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs in the title, you cannot claim that the rename is a common name when it was only recently done this requires discussion. Your weird page moves at Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College were also disruptive and had to be fixed by a page mover. "These institutions were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members during her authoritarian regime" - Read WP:RGW, Wikipedia is not a place for partisan editing.

AI use is discouraged and editors are told to exercise caution making sure that content does not violate guidelines. You did not cite BBC but The Indian Express which is not supporting your information. NXcrypto Message 16:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College Is located in Bogra District. to make a redirect, i did that. It will help people. When they will search Bogura Medical College or Bogra Medical College, they will find the main article.
Unfortunately while doing the second move, I couldn’t move back to the main article. because there was already a redirect. (my first move). And I don’t have “page mover” right, so I couldn’t fix that. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

So, it seems when I look through this, it seems like the primary complaints, Cerium4B are undiscussed article page moves and using AI for citations and other content creation. While it might be true that most editors can move a page, if there are complaints about it, which there obvious are because we're discussing this at ANI, then you should be discussing mass changes like this. Can you change your editing practices in response to the problems pointed out, in good faith, by other editors?

I think what bothers me the most is not the article page moves, which were not warranted but can be reverted and rather using AI to form a citation which might exist for a long time before another editor thinks to check on it and finds that it is inaccurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If I missed some glaring problem here, I apologize but this is a very lengthy complaint. My comments were not an attempt to summarize what has been said but by what stood out to me in the most recent comments posted today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cerium4B, please do not use AI to generate citations for wikipedia. This puts you at risk of violating WP:V with your edits. You must base your edits on sources that you, yourself, have read. AI is also often very poor at maintaining WP:NPOV, and it can fabricate "facts", so it's not a good idea to use it for writing articles at all. You are working in and adjacent to various WP:CTOPs, and other editors have questioned whether your edits are pov-pushing, so you especially ought to avoid using AI.

These moves do not appear to me to be RGW issues. In particular, I find it disingenuous to say that These institutions were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members during her authoritarian regime is a partisan statement. It is simply a statement of fact. Nor is it an unacceptable statement of one's personal politics to use the word "authoritarian" to describe her. Our own article on Sheikh Hasina describes her government as "authoritarian", cites RS who call her a "dictator", and contains an entire paragraph on Bangladesh's diplomatic backsliding.

@Cerium4B, what is problematic about these moves, at least the handful I investigated, is that you changed the name without adding any kind of source for the information, and without writing anything about it in the article. So someone who comes to Shariatpur Agriculture University sees an article where, aside from the bolded first words, every mention appears to be of a different institution. There is no information at all about the name change to the current title. That's unhelpful and confusing to readers. Please don't make this kind of page move in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz & @Asilvering,

• Page moves: I understand thta I should’ve made a discussion before moving those articles. But I noticed that the page reviewer reviewed those moves. If there were any issues, they should’ve reverted those and given me a warning on my talk page. I think those moves are not violating any Wikipedia policy.
• Accusation of using AI: Using AI isn’t a violation on Wikipedia but it is discouraged. Generally, I don’t use AI to contribute. I use AI to complete a citation from a URL. For example, the command -

  “make a Wikipedia citation from this (www….com) URL, use <ref… code”

  – But there I made a mistake by failing to set that citation in the matching content. If I had set the BBC news reference correctly, that wouldn’t be an issue to discuss here today.
• However: This contribution on the emergency movie was already reverted by an editor, saying the controversial section is discouraged. And they didn’t give me any warning when I added the controversy section. I didn’t try to edit-war to keep my contribution. So it shouldn’t be an issue here!
• Solution: If the page moves are a major issue, I’m requesting to revert those moves. Also, I’ll try to improve those pages as asilvering suggested.

Though this report is weird, but it is very educative.

If I have said anything wrong here, please forgive me. I’ll try to be more careful while contributing, and I can assure you of that! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not use AI to make citations. Period. There are tools on Wikipedia itself to help automate formatting of citations. LLMs are prone to mistakes and simply are not fit to purpose here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Noted…I will stick to that. Thanks for letting me know about this amazing tool! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I still don't think you get it, Cerium4B. You were brought to ANI. This is where editors come to ask for other editors to be blocked and lose their editing privileges. This discussion has gone on for 10 days! There are editors that want you to no longer edit here, at all. And you are still saying that I think those moves are not violating any Wikipedia policy? If there were not editors who disagreed with you, we would not be here discussing your editing. I don't see how much more has to be said so you realize there is a problem and you have to change your editing to accommodate editors who are having issues with you. This is your second chance, this is your User talk page message saying "This is a problem". Please take this seriously or you could be blocked next time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz,

This is not the first time I’ve been reported here. Also, I’ve reported other users here, so I know much about WP:ANI.

This report has lasted 10 days because Koshuris report was just a nothingburger! Then, the two users, Hanes & Nxcrypto, started to find my faults. If at first they could mention my faults, then we could have reached a result. But they didn’t succeed. Finally, Nxcrypto found my undiscussed page move and an Ai generated contribution (which was already reverted by a user on that article).

Above, admins have told me that those page moves are not a major problem. So, I’ve commented, “I think those moves are not violating any Wikipedia policy.”

In a recent comment, @Asilvering suggested me that there's no need to revert those page moves if I can add reliable sources that indicate that the names have been changed. And I can provide references. I will add reliable references.

Two users want a ban on me, Koshuri and Nxcrypto are supporting each other here, and they have a history of supporting each other. [265]

User EF5 is opposing Nxcrypto’s proposal, & Abo Yemen’s comment also sounds like an opposition to Nxcrypto.

However, I am apologising for all of my mistakes. I will never use Ai to make such contributions and will try to discuss before moving an important article. And trust me, all my contributions here are with the intent of helping Wikipedia. Thank you!

(I was reported here by Koshuri for my earlier contributions. When admins said the old ones are not significant, Koshuri tried to find my other faults, then those were also not significant. Since then, they have not been much active in this discussion. Then, Mr. Hanes also failed to provide evidence of my mistakes. Since then, they have been inactive here. Nxcrypto has been active since the first day. Finally, Nxcrypto have found those page moves and an Ai made contribution a violation, and he wants a topic ban on me. Koshuri is now supporting his proposal.) — Cerium4B—Talk? • 08:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no need to revert those page moves, if you can add reliable sources that indicate that the name has been changed, and you add some mention of it to the article. Then, they're perfectly fine. If you don't have any sources for the information, though, please do revert the page moves. Once reliable sources exist on the topic, then you can move them. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I’m noticing that other users have already made contributions to those articles. They have added reliable sources. They have mentioned former names(some of those institutions had multiple names) in the infobox and in the history section with reliable references. Anyone can check that. Also, I’m providing a reference here, which was recently gazetted by the government of Bangladesh, to make sure everyone that those names have really been changed. Check - () — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

References

The point being, you need to add those sources before making moves, just to avoid this kind of problem in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, Thank you once again for your guidance. I will make sure to follow this in the future. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to pblocked Cerium4B from mainspace

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.

---

In violation of WO:NPOV, WP:IDHT and for casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other good faith editors. They are WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia but for a specific WP:BATTLEGROUND cause. The series of personal attacks and casting aspersions along with POV pushing is extremely concerning. Their recent involvement in canvassing and irresponsible behaviour on talk pages further warrants a pblock from mainspace of English Wikipedia. Maybe they can prove themselves by contributing in bengali or simple Wikipedia.

• Support as proposer.Mr.Hanes Talk 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: While it is true that Cerium4B has been involved in canvassing for long time but he claims to have been completely unaware about canvassing[266][267]. The edit diffs related to POV-pushing & Personal Attack are month old. Given these factors, imposing sanctions at this stage does not seem justified. NXcrypto Message 10:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Struck per my above comment. NXcrypto Message 13:44, 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.

Proposal topic ban

The lack of response from Cerium4B to any of the concerns about his editing raised above is apparent. His announcement that he is currently busy in real life only when the above thread became more crucial is barely a coincidence.[268] I propose an indefinite topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (WP:ARBIPA) for Cerium4B. NXcrypto Message 07:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per my above rationale + Cerium4B disruptive page moves and problematic edits. NXcrypto Message 09:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop making illogical proposals and try to respect other users’ real lives. None of the accusations you have raised are major problems. Those pages were already reviewed by “page reviewer”s. If there were any issues, they would have reverted those and warned me on my talk page. If they had done that and I still didn’t follow their suggestions, then I could be reported here. But nobody has shown any issue with those moves; it’s just you all here trying to strike at me anyway! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@NXcrypto How is a ban from IPA topics helpful when most of his edits are Bengali-related? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose since I got no reply 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Certainly, not a good rationale. – Garuda ^Talk! 20:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Will you leave me alone for one fucking day please? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't be more bitter with your words. Who's even holding you back? – Garuda ^Talk! 09:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support - The response from Cerium4B to this proposal only signifies his irresponsible behavior. Similarly, his response to Liz and Asilvering does not show if he understands the seriousness of this report. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that response. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you think so? His response is evasive at best. In better words, he is saying "I was correct, but if you think otherwise, ok." That does not give any confidence that we will not end up here anytime soon. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Besides the AI and moves, all of the "damning" diffs presented are from several months ago, I don't think this is neccesary (and the constant "proposals" seem like WP:BITING, but that's just me). E_F⁵ 00:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @EF5 consider latest abuse by Cerium4B, misusing warn template. [269] and his response to this : [As your edit count is less than 100, I’ve given you the test edit warning...][270] NXcrypto Message 19:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

While the warning was wrong, the revert was right. The "Bangladesh ranks first in inflation" is completely innacurate. E_F⁵ 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That is a content dispute. Refer to his response regarding his misuse of the warning template. NXcrypto Message 19:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't try to brush it off. As Black Kite said, edit warring is far more disruptive than a template misuse. E_F⁵ 20:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm even going to as far as to suggest a BOOMERANG for NXCrypto for WP:HOUNDING Cerium, WP:BLUDGEONING and overall hostile behavior noted by several others below; seems this user has caused similar "drama" (if that's what you'd call this mess) well outside of this. — E_F⁵ 00:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support : Cerium4B has demonstrated a consistent pattern of disruptive editing, including mass undiscussed page moves, AI-generated citations, and POV-pushing. Despite multiple warnings, they have continued to make unilateral changes without consensus, disregarding WP:NPOV and community collaboration. AI-generated content poses a serious reliability risk. While they claim to acknowledge their mistakes but their dismissive attitude and attempt to deflect blame suggest they are unlikely to change their behavior. Tban is warranted to prevent further damage. Mr.Hanes Talk 12:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Evasive attitude of Cerium4B, and his continued problematic editing is leading me to support this proposal. He cites a frivolous SPI here to cast aspersions against two editors. While EF5 has opposed the proposal by citing WP:BITING, he should see one of this recent edit from Cerium4B where he is posting a frivolous warning by falsely labelling a constructive an edit as "test edit". Capitals00 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  How wonder!

  despite seeing the whole issue you are blaming me for giving a test edit warning to a newcomer!

  @CelesteQuill misrepresentated a source on the article Bangladesh. We are still discussing the issue here - “user talk:NXcrypto#Bangladesh article”.

  As they misrepresentated the source I’ve given the test edit warning.

  What is constructive on his contribution [271] ??? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are still displaying a warlike mentality instead of accepting that you misused the warning template. You issued a test edit warning to Celeste Quil, even though their edit was not a test. It’s important to acknowledge mistakes rather than always defend unjustified actions. NXcrypto Message 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Cerium4B did issue the wrong template to CelesteQuill, but they were correct that the text misrepresents the source. I started a discussion at Talk:Bangladesh#"Ranking". (Article talk pages are where such discussions should take place.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd, I hope Cerium4B will accept that he/she misused warning template. NXcrypto Message 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @NXcrypto, I hope so too. I also hope that you and CelesteQuill will acknowledge that the text you both added to the article is not supported by the cited source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Okay. Seems like i did. (But I don’t know how)

  My intention was to warn the user. I assumed, that was a type of test edit from user with less than 100 edits.

  However, as they misrepresented the source, which warning should have i given to them? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You could have used uw-error1 or uw-unsourced1. Or you could have just typed out a message, explaining the problem with their edit. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd is correct, @Cerium4B, but I would instead suggest that you avoid giving any warnings at all, template or otherwise. If someone makes an edit you think is incorrect, go to the Talk page of the relevant article to discuss it. In general, it's not helpful to use warning templates on another editor's talk page if you're in a content dispute with them. In your case in particular, you're clearly still learning Wikipedian norms and policies, so at least in my opinion I think you should avoid warning other editors at all. Focus on yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  That is content dispute. Main issue by CelesteQiul is misusing warn template. NXcrypto Message 18:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I think misrepresenting sources in articles causes more harm than using the wrong warning template. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I think you should give a read to the recent chat we had on the talk page of NXcrypto. This was clearly a POV push and absolute vandalism and misinformation spamming to the lead of a country article. Its just that NXcrypto and the editor with 60 edits do not understand the English language properly and/or are that negligent. They're now trying to gang up and wrongly topic ban Cerium4B since he's not supporting their agenda. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 18:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Considerably more harm, yes. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be BITING to me, and as above it seemed to be a good-faith mistake (we're all humans, after all). Now if it happened several times, that'd be a different story. — E_F⁵ 19:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support – I added this content, and Cerium4B issued me a test edit warning, even though my edit was well-sourced. I fail to see how a properly referenced edit qualifies as a "test edit." Furthermore, Cerium4B have been engaging in POV-pushing, even when user provided reference screenshots. Such nationalist edit warrior behavior is disruptive. Given their aggressive and warlike approach toward other editors, a topic ban is necessary. CelesteQuill (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You're acting as if the content you added was actually accurate or informative in any way, shape or manner. That is actually misinformation and vandalism considering the source actually does not state what you added there. That's made up info in your mind. So we can't even revert vandalism or actual POV from new editors nowadays without getting topic banned. That's crazy. You're an account with 60 edits. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 18:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Where have they engaged in vandalism? Do you even understand what vandalism is? Do not attack them for having a low edit count(which on Wikipedia means nothing really) - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The edits shown here are several months old and irrelevant to the issue at hand. The page moves are harmless. A topic ban is not necessary by any means considering he is not engaged in vandalism. The fact that he gave a warning to User:CelesteQuill, who is a new user with 60 edits and was engaged in vandalism was the right approach. This is indeed WP:BITING and he is being ganged up on. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 17:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You’ve misrepresented the source. [272]. You have already checked the discussion regarding your misrepresented contribution. I’ve mentioned the issue multiple times, then @Swoonfed has also elaborated the issue [273].

  Stop doing wp:attack. As your edit count is less than 100, I’ve given you the test edit warning. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  [As your edit count is less than 100, I’ve given you the test edit warning...]

  Sorry, but this does not justify your mistake. You have already admitted to using AI (ChatGPT) for Wikipedia, so I don’t think you should have any issue accepting this mistake as well, that you misused the warning template. NXcrypto Message 18:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You have already admitted to using AI (ChatGPT) for Wikipedia
  at this point you're just rubbing this on their face 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Swoonfed [The page moves are harmless....] No, the page moves by Cerium4B were disastrous, undiscussed, and appeared to push a particular point of view. Such moves should not be dismissed as harmless.

  [The fact that he gave a warning to User:CelesteQuill, who is a new user (account created a month ago)..] No, the account is actually one year old, and I have just checked that CelesteQuill good contribution history on hiwiki. [and was engaged in vandalism was the right approach...], You are once again falsely accusing an editor of vandalism despite prior warnings. NXcrypto Message 18:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree the page moves he made were done without any discussion or given source, but they were indeed accurate. He's understood his mistakes and pledged not to continue moving pages in that manner. We shouldn't drag that any further in my opinion since the user has admitted to improving themselves in that regard already.

• [You are once again falsely accusing an editor of vandalism despite prior warnings...] What are you even talking about? Celeste Quil added blatant propaganda and misinformation to the article of Bangladesh today and reverted me and Cerium4B about 2 TIMES trying to re-add it. You also reverted us 2 times. That's a combined 4 times in a single day - all to add false information to the lead with a source that does not comply with your claims. That is literally VANDALISM or POV pushing. Celeste Quill reverted me here. You reverted twice: 1 and 2 - citing removal of "sourced" content, which is actually made up and not sourced indeed. The fact that both of you were constantly claiming that this was "sourced" info is blatant gaslighting and misinformation.

  Do you even understand what you've done? This is the sentence you added: [{{TQ|According to the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2025, Bangladesh ranks 1st in inflation, facing some of the highest price increases globally. The country is 2nd in extreme weather events, frequently affected by floods and heatwaves. It ranks 3rd in pollution, with severe air, water, and soil contamination. Bangladesh is 4th in unemployment or lack of economic opportunity, and it holds the 5th position in economic downturn, facing risks of recession and stagnation.[274] - since when does Bangladesh rank first in inflation GLOBALLY? Keep in mind, this source simply stated these are the biggest issues within the country internally. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 18:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  "literally VANDALISM"

  Consider familiarising yourself with WP:VANDAL, WP:NOTVAND and WP:VANDTYPE, source misrepresentation is not vandalism, you should retract these accusations of vandalism or else you may find yourself getting sanctioned. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Source misrepresentation when done multiple times while constantly gaslighting and reverting those pointing out their mistakes is indeed vandalism. That too to the lead of a country's article. What they did today is a bigger issue than whatever "wrong" template warning was given to the new user. This level of negligence and blatant disregard while handling high importance articles and still not admitting to the mistakes and continuously arguing is not proving their point to me, at least. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 18:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  It is not vandalism and stop this or else I'll have to seek sanctions against you considering that you are aware of ARBIPA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Ratnahastin: Can you explain how a ban from IPA topics, that is from topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan going to help the matter at hand here considering Cerium4B mostly edits articles related to Bangladesh? Is that also a part of IPA now? You've also shown support to an IPA topic ban below. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Swoonfed as you claim: [He's understood his mistakes and pledged not to continue moving pages in that manner...], Please cite the edit diff where Cerium4B pledge to not to do POV undiscussed page move in future. NXcrypto Message 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @NXcrypto: see the last para (1), also here (2) Swoonfed ^(Ping) 19:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Swoonfed I have reviewed both diffs you provided and found that Cerium4B stated: [I will never use AI to make such contributions and will try to discuss before moving an important article...] But, your claim that he pledged to stop making undiscussed or POV-based moves is inaccurate. Nowhere in that reply does he make such a pledge. Instead, it appears to be an attempt to avoid sanctions rather than a genuine acknowledgment of past mistakes. NXcrypto Message 19:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Net negative, their comment above "As your edit count is less than 100, I’ve given you the test edit warning" does not inspire much confidence. We don't hand out test templates to users based on edit count and CelesteQuill did not make a test edit and calling them a vandal without even understanding what vandalism is [275] , makes me think that this user should not be editing a contentious topic. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Really @Ratnahastin?

  so now a misrepresentation of a source is a lesser issue than my comment! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and article protected. This, added by NXCrypto and Celeste Quill, is absolutely source misrepresentation. This edit suggests that Bangladesh has the highest inflation globally; the source does not say that, it says that Bangladesh's No.1 risk is inflation (you will notice that eleven other countries also have "inflation" as their No.1 risk). Bangladesh's inflation rate is currently around 10%, which is quite high, but pales into insignificance beside Argentina's 54%, Turkey's 31%, Iran's 27%, Nigeria's 25%, etc. Whilst I could AGF that the editors adding this do not have English as their first language and therefore do not understand how misleading that addition is, it looks really suspicious as well. I have fully protected the article for 1 week. After that time, if I see editors doing this again, I will not assume good faith and I will remove them from the article (if not the entire topic area); it's not vandalism, but deliberate disruption and edit-warring carries exactly the same sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for actually commenting on the gravity of the actions taken today by these two users: NXcrypto and Celeste Quil on the article of Bangladesh today. They've constantly reverted and re-added their misinformation hiding it under the guise of "sourced" information. Their lack of comprehension of the English language is clear, but this was a deliberate POV/agenda push. And they're yet to apologize or admit to their wrongdoings above or in NXCrypto's talk page. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 19:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite The main issue isn’t the article edit but rather the recent misuse of the warning template by Cerium4B [276]. But, his response to this issue was: [As your edit count is less than 100, I’ve given you the test edit warning...] [277]. NXcrypto Message 19:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• That is certainly an issue. But it's a far less important one than edit-warring source misrepresentation into the article, which you have not addressed. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Black Kite. More than a week ago, I asked for diffs of 1) the unacceptable behaviour, 2) someone explaining why that behaviour is not acceptable, and 3) the behaviour continuing after that explanation, and we still haven't gotten that. At this point the whole ANI thread and block proposals appear to be vexatious. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, would you consider a close? This looong thread has been open for almost two weeks now with no action taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I admit I considered it earlier today, but since I had literally dozens of notifications from this thread, I could hardly say discussion had run its course. However, in all those edits, all we've gotten is more evidence that implicates the supporters of the ban, not Cerium4B. I'll close this soon, if no one else beats me to it. Some laundry to do first. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Swoonfed is spot on, on "WP:BITING and he is being ganged up on" and Black Kite as well. I can share more details about the same behavior that I have noticed on other pages by the supporters over some time now, but busy right now with family things. Can you keep this open for a day or so? For the record, I usually edit on an IP, but have made an account to remain anonymous. Kaleighlight (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not allowed to evade WP:SCRUTINY. Reveal your past accounts or IPs, otherwise you can face a block for evading scrutiny. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

What? No, we're not going to block people who used to edit under an IP and now use an account because they want to be more anonymous. That's what we want editors to do. Please don't imply otherwise, @Ratnahastin. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Not much confidence in Cerium4B's responses. Considering their reckless use of AI, mass removal of content [278][279], and overzealous templating of newcomers, I'm inclined to support a block ranging from a Tban to a Pban. – Garuda ^Talk! 20:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. Wikipedia has millions of articles not in the contentious topic area. An editor can spend their life editing Wikipedia and not brush up against something as contentious as this has been. Edit productively elsewhere for a few months or a year, and then ask to return to editing the thing that riles you. BD2412 T 05:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412, May I request you to investigate those accusations against me? Because I’ve already refuted most of their accusations. Now my two mistakes are being discussed here.

  1. Those undiscussed page moves and

  2. An ai made contribution

  Yes, there are millions of things on Wikipedia where I can contribute if I get a topic ban. But there should be some reasons to ban me. Everything should be fair here.

  Moreover, it’s not a voting contest. Admins will investigate everything before taking any step. If, in their investigation, they think I’m doing violations continuously, they should definitely ban me. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 10:35, 20 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.

Unusual disruptive editing at Kösem Sultan

• Kösem Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A dynamic IP range that starts with 2407:d000:403:1d3c: keeps re-inserting the following nonsensical sentence into Kösem Sultan: [280] I reverted a few times with edit comments asking the dynamic IP to rephrase the sentence into something intelligible. They always just revert back to their preferred version. Normally I'd start a discussion at article talk and tag the non-communicative editor but, being a dynamic IP range, it's kind of hard for me to do that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I tried something a little different. I've notified all three of the IPv6 locations the user has so far. We'll see if they show up here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I've added 48 hours of page protection because I live in hope. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad it's all rainbows and unicorns in your neighborhood. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Rainbows, unicorns, death threats... not so bad, all things considered. -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If you send in those death threats to Trust & Safety, toss in those rainbows and unicorns, too....they probably don't get much sunshine in the kind of work they do. You couldn't pay me enough to help out there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 123.16.54.154

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.

---

123.16.54.154 (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. IP was previously blocked for 31h on January 21 - behaviour that led to block has since continued. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor doesn't just come out of nowhere and start bulk-adding unsourced content to a group of related articles. This has obviously been going on for a long time (for example, Special:Contributions/14.190.11.252). Long-term page protection might be a better solution, but I did a month-long block, which might help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

More Disney Channel disruption? We sure have a lot of these IP sock farms that are focused on children's programming and films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 20 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.

Banned Rishabisajakepauler is active again

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:Rishabisajakepauler is banned per WP:THREESTRIKES. Regardless, he is back at his old games with another Texas IP: Special:Contributions/64.189.243.210. Discussion is underway at User talk:64.189.243.210, with the person requesting mentorship. I told him it was too late for that. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 21 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.

Bertolt Brecht spamming on Killing of David Maland

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 also Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Killing_of_David_Maland. Polygnotus (talk) 14:24, 21 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:Frenkisswen : too many errors

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

This editor is editing prolifically but appears not to be familiar enough with the English language and also introduces factual errors.

This edit is typical: introduces a falsehood (there is no grade III for UK listed buildings), and changes to a singular verb for a plural subject.

Their edit history shows many edits - the large number "Current" reflects that other editors have not yet spent time to comb through them all. I looked at their first 10 from 16th February and found 4 to comment on on their talk page. That's too high an error rate, and it continues.

To protect the encyclopedia, I think this editor needs to be stopped from editing it. They are enthusiastic, and they think they are doing well, but their edits are a nett disbenefit. PamD 09:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Further comments by nominator

Apologies for not making the problem clear enough (as pointed out by User:Cullen328 below).

This editor does not appear to understand English well enough to be editing here, so I ask admins to block them from editing (or to take one of the other actions I suggest below: a numeric or subject area limit).

See User talk:Frenkisswen for discussion of the problem by several editors, with examples of problematic edits.

Here they show lack of familiarity with English: they change "Since its founding there have been more than 10,000 members including ..." to "Since its founding there has been more than 10,000 members including ..." and "At one time membership of the "ancient and well known society" was limited to ..." to "At one time membership of the "ancient and well known society" were limited to ...". Just plain wrong. Not just writing something wrongly themselves, but deliberately changing the existing (correct) text to what they incorrectly believe is right, leaving the article ungrammatical.

This edit is particularly worrying: they changed "It was described by Bates in 1865." to "It was described as Bates in 1865." (it's about a beetle) and then, on their talk page after I'd talked about it, said "The last correction you made the topic was referring to 'beetle' which sort of makes sense if it's referred to as 'bates' ..you can say 'bates' wrote about it but then who is the 'bates' I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense to me. They should not be editing articles in subject areas where they don't understand standard English usage.

Yes, some of their edits are useful, some others are harmless, but too many are damaging the encyclopedia - either by making our prose ungrammatical, or by introducing factual errors. PamD 18:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

After I commented on their talkpage about problems (after having undone several of their edits), they responded that they did not understand what the problem was. They then made 8 further edits, of which 2 were factually incorrect changes and 3 three more contained one or more clear linguistic mistakes. I suspect non-native English speaker, as their edits appear to be applying strict language rules that are not matched to actual English usage, and focusing only on those without actually reading and understanding the pre- or post-edit content. As Pam says, this error rate is too high. I see no clear substantially beneficial edits, but instead such a high error rate that every one of their edits consumes another editor's time to double-check it. DMacks (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see a specific proposal here, so I didn't !vote, but I'd say CIR-block, or else if someone wants to adopt as a mentor/mentee for close guidance. My comment to them on their user-talk was to find a Wikipedia in their native language. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support; PamD's word is sufficient. +1 DMacks. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) I looked at F's 10 latest edits of yesterday, 18 February. I considered one or two slightly fussy (e.g. 1, 2), but found nothing wrong and several were definitely grammatical improvements (e.g 3, 4, 5). Narky Blert (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

4, 5 aren't great improvements per summary style, although I grant they're not that bad either. But I do not think their last ten edits are enough to go on. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

In [5], IDK if "likely demands for large number of destroyers" (before F's edit) is good American English, but it's see-me-after-class-bad British English. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That language before Frenkissalt's edit is bad American English as well, except posssibly for Variety magazine's or Walter Winchell's style in the 1930s to 1950s. It's terrible. Frenkissalt's edit was an improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• As an alternative, if anyone opposes a total block, could I suggest one of two possible rulings:

1. Frenkisswen to be restricted, for some specified period of time, to a certain number of edits editing a certain number of articles per day (10, perhaps), so that other editors can check them without taking up too much of their own editing time. (Edited to change from edits to articles PamD 07:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC))
2. Frenkisswen to be invited to nominate a fairly narrow subject area with which they are familiar, and then be restricted to editing within that area, so that they can become familiar with the language used in that area and avoid mistakes such as changing "species" to "species" (so not a biological subject area), or inventing a new grade for UK listed buildings (so nothing to do with the UK). It could be "history of country X" or "books and writers in genre Y" or "Sport Z", something on those lines. They seem at present to be editing random articles, and not realising when they don't understand the language used. PamD 12:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Eh. I would agree that a lot of their edits are not necessarily improvements, but few of them are so bad as to require discussion of blocking, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on the diffs presented so far, I see one clearly bad edit, several debatable edits and several that were clearly improvements. And based on that thin evidence, some editors are supporting an indefinite block? Really? Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I just read Frenkisswen's user talk page and I now see that there is a chronic problem. I do not understand why some of the evidence there was not presented here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, see above where I've added "Further comments by the nominator". Sorry I didn't make the situation clear earlier. PamD 18:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

A minor point, PamD, but I don't think I've ever seen the phrase nett disbenefit that you use above. Is that an English expression? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

'Net disbenefit' is indeed an English expression (though perhaps not a common one). It is the difference between disbenefits and benefits and indicates more harm than good. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think perhaps I'm being a bit old-fashioned with my two "t"s, and "net" is more common. @Liz@Malcolmxl5"Disbenefit" - have I just invented that one? Opposite of "benefit", anyway. "More harm than good" is indeed much better wording and conveys my meaning! I think I was trying very hard to be calm and balanced, and to give them credit for doing good edits as well as bad. PamD 07:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This sort of stuff is a tough one, it's clear that they mean well but also that they fundamentally do not understand the problem with their edits. Most (94.1%) of their edits are sub-20 bytes, a huge chunk of which has been reverted, so I feel like they're doing more harm by wasting editor time with proofreading every minor edit than good by fixing minor grammar mistakes. I also highly suspect non-native English speaker. I would support a PBAN from Article Space until they can demonstrate better editing behavior. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've looked through some of these; I'd say they are about a third improvement (often where the original was terrible), a third neutral or neutral to negative (unnecessary or longwinded/overformal), and a third change the sense or are not grammatical. I agree that their English fluency is in question. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Espresso Addict So you reckon that perhaps 1 in 3 of their edits damages the encyclopedia by changing the sense or making it ungrammatical. Do you think someone with that sort of record ought to continue editing here? PamD 14:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Behaviour by user that violates multiple behavioural guidelines and perceived failed talk page discussions

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.

---

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

User has continued to exhibit behaviour that are actively against Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. Below is a timeline of diffs (with explanations/violations).

• 1276260292 (addition of WP:OR)
  • 1276270820 ((revert — WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE)
  • 1276270910 (warning issued: Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material.; response then page blanked)
• 1276260292 (re-addition of WP:OR/MOS:TEXTSIZE violation)
  • 1276384774 (revert — WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE/MOS:TEXTSIZE)
  • 1276384994 (warning issued: Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material.; response? then page blanked)
• 1276537336 (addition of WP:OR/violation of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE)
• 1276538788 (beginning of talk page discussion)
• 1276540014 (addition of WP:OR/WP:STONEWALL)
• 1276540829 (WP:OR/WP:STONEWALL/unexplained removal of cited, valid content)
• 1276543745 (WP:STONEWALL/WP:CITEVAR)
• 1276544433 (WP:STONEWALL/Unreliable source/WP:CITEVAR)
  • 1276565569 (revert — WP:OR/adhering to WP:STONEWALL)
  • 1276571458 (talk page response)
• 1276609860|1276609860 (response on talk page)
• 1276610577 (re-addition of WP:OR/WP:STONEWALL/WP:CITEVAR)
• 1276610632 (blanking of talk page)
  • 1276614519 (revert — per WP:STONEWALL; self-revert implemented)
  • 1276615857 (restore of talk page discussion)

And while an exhaustive, two-way talk page discussion has gone on, several policies and guidelines have been explained to the user (to the best of my ability, with linking), and yet user continues attempts to insert original research (as well as using it as reasons for their point of view of things being "right" versus "wrong", as well as continually deletes the entire talk page discussion ([281] [282]) and lastly citing the conversation as "over", while also noting they don't want the conversation to exist anymore. This is highly alarming behaviour during a content dispute where resolution was attempted in a full-day of discussion, and now awaiting potential others to become involved at the same time. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This was their last edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I wish to delete my account. The behaviour from the above user is appalling and I can see this is repeated often in talk pages by them just to prove a point and then justify their behaviour with links seen above. I do not wish to engage with this kind of harassment and I will not be forced into a false narrative or using sources that are factually incorrect just to appease someone. I have been part of Wikipedia for six years and my contributions have made a great difference and I've never had an issue like this. I know that this user will continuously follow my edits, try to dispute them and claim it under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not interested in that. I do not wish to be part of Wikipedia any longer after this experience. Please delete and remove my account. BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. There is WP:VANISH, which is for user[s] in good standing and is discretionary and may be refused. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Vanish works fine. I've never had an issue on Wikipedia until yesterday. I don't want my account to be active or for the above user to interact with me in any way shape or form.BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

BiebersBoyMendes, we are an encyclopedia; we are not here to "right the great wrongs", we document them instead. If you are unwilling to cooperate with other editors, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t wish to cooperate with editors that behave in the way they do and get away with it BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Please vanish/remove my account, I don’t wish to partake anymore BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

They were trying to explain what was wrong with your edits in the most easy to understand way possible, yet you accused them of making personal attacks towards you. They're not "getting away" with sketchy behavior. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Great BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I also wish to note, user has said "I know that this user will continuously follow my edits" and I have never interacted with this user until this situation, and participated in a 13-hour talk page discussion until this report was made, and was only made upon the continued removal of the talk page discussion, which showed an unwillingness to cooperate with the processes Wikipedia has established for determining content dispute by way of consensus. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m logging out. I’m not engaging in this anymore. Please remove the account. BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As mentioned previously, your account cannot be deleted as any edits you made must be attributed to it. You can simply log out of the account and never use it again. Some users decide to put the {{retired}} template on their user page or ask for a courtesy vanishing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:01, 21 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.

Editor deleting sourced material on self-coups

Note also adding material but I'm most concerned with [283] and [284]. One of these was reverted but they removed the same material again. Note they do not seem to speak English but Portuguese[285]. See earlier discussion here. I'll notify them but I'm not sure they have found their talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

JC2003D

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 want to assume good faith, but JC2003D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recreated the same hoax draft (Draft:One Piece (fanfiction)) three times now, and it's very clear they're not going to stop anytime soon. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page. I'll leave this discussion open in case they continue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

In their editing career, JC2003D has made 3 edits over the last 24 hours. Unfortunately, we have quite a few editors (mostly IPs) creating hoax articles on nonexistent films and TV series both in Draft space and as orphaned Talk pages. I do not think that these are all JC2003D. It is probably an idea that was suggested at Fandom or some fan site. This is all to say that we deal with these hoax film articles fairly regularly (at least I delete a few every week) so I don't think this individual situation with JC2003D was ANIworthy as a chronic, intractable problem.

I think we need to raise the bar on what should be reported here as a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 21 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.

Sockpuppetry

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.

---

This may be the wrong place to ask this but is it possible to block somebody from creating new accounts? I ask this because of these sockpuppets: DancingWithOhio, WeMadeItHereToday, YourAverageGuy, Pine2024, Cleveland2024 who all vandalise similar articles (Skibidi Toilet and Sigma Boy for example). ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to go into too much detail as you have very likely just pinged all of them to this discussion. (This would be a rare exception to the usual requirement to alert involved parties to an ANI discussion.) There are ways to detect socks through behavioral evidence and the use of edit filters. And admins with check user rights have tools at their disposal that can identify socks. That said, technically it is very difficult to actually prevent account creation by determined sock masters. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see.―Panamitsu (talk) 22:01, 21 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.

Theroadislong

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 editor "Theroadislong" is applying extremely heavy handed edits and omissions of material that meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

I'm a relatively new user to the interface of Wikipedia. My entire experience with "Theroadislong" has been one with a complete lack of compassion and willingness to help. I've been met nothing but heavy handed judgement, and double speak with regards to what is acceptable and not acceptable.

"Theroadislong" is NOT checking or verifying the sources, just asserting that material is unsourced or poorly sourced. This is where the heavy handedness and indifference comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepublicschoolmusician (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully request for other editors to look at the edits and provide oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepublicschoolmusician (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: you must notify users that you bring to AN/I. I'm going to do so shortly.

Courtesy link: Theroadislong (talk · contribs)

I believe more context can be found on Theroadislong's talk page. Departure– (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

My reading of this is that Thepublicschoolmusician is attempting to add awards sourced to a non-profit organization. This is a matter that should have been raised on the article's talk page or WP:RSN but was brought to Theroadislong's talk page. Also I note that Thepublicschoolmusician is using ANI as a threat (see Theroadislong's talk page). Departure– (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen all of the background context but overall my impression is that this is an extremely overblown content dispute that shouldn't have been brought to ANI. I think Thepublicschoolmusician should WP:DROPTHESTICK and seek other forms of dispute resolution - and I advise you start at the article (in which the dispute originated)'s talk page. Departure– (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like they did attempt to add the ani notice template to the talk page,[286] but they did so before actually starting the discussion here and also accidentally nowiki'd it. Taffer😊 💬_(she/they) 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Thepublicschoolmusician,

In order to evaluate your complaint, you should provide "diffs" or edits that reflect the problematic behavior you are complaining about. Without being able to verify your complaint, no action can be taken and it's your responsibility to not just say it's happening but show editors examples of where this activity happened. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that "oversight" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia so it is hard to identify what you are requesting. With that aside, as it says at the top of this page, can you provide diffs that demonstrate the concerning edits you have and specify which policies or guidelines you believe the editor is running afoul of? I want to say that as this has popped up on my watchlist as I'm a TPS of Theroadislong, I have seen Thepublicschoolmusician use some language in this discussion that demonstrates an WP:Ownership of content mentality. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the OP for multiple reasons stated in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 21 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 LifeIsPainHighness

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.

---

Can we please revoke TPA for this user? They've gone on the attack & don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Deepfriedokra! Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:07, 22 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:Jgera5 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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.

---

• Jgera5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent addition of speculative or unconfirmed information; improper formatting of references. Communication is required. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of unconfirmed information? Improper formatting is not grounds for admin action. Star Mississippi 18:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

These edits about WHBQ-TV being sold to Sinclair [287][288] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, communication is required. One form of required communication is notifying editors when you post about them at ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Forgot about that, my bad. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

We're talking about an editor with >10,000 edits, a >10% revert rate in their latest 500 edits, no comments on any article talk page since 2022, and a litany of complaints on their user talk about sourcing and speculation. A block from article space may help us start some communication. I wonder if a CIR block may be necessary, as they still drop completely unsourced content in articles January 12 —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC). Addendum: going back a few years, their reversal rate was much lower (10 vs 60 reversals per 500 edits). I wonder what has changed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll start by revoking AP, since it's really worrying that we're talking about a CIR block for someone who is autopatrolled. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

They just attacked me on my talk page, saying "leave me the hell alone". [289] Warned them accordingly. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That was rude, but that's not a personal attack. "Dude, what the fuck, leave me alone?!" is a failure to be collegial. "Dude, you're an idiot and your articles are full of lies and you should log off the internet forever" is a personal attack. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 21 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.

Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk#Peacock

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 page history of talk. This IP/multiple IP user is making disruptive comments in that thread with a registered user about the subject, often leading to WP:PAs. I've reverted two of their too far comments, but they're continuing. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 13:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing it. It was also my mistake that I fell into the trap and I started talking about unrelated things. Next time I will try to find the way to report them immediately. AlickyH (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to User:37.155.73.63? I spot-checked their edits and other IPs and saw vigorous arguing and questionable content. I'll impose a short block. You could open an SPI but I'm not sure they are doing anything deceptive since this is not a discussion that has "vote" components. You could ask for page protection if you believe the activity is truly disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's good for now. I have not seen any other similar disruptive behaviors from other users/accounts, and the disruption did not continue, so this is all good now. Thanks for the 31. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:56, 21 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.

School block apparently needed

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.

---

216.30.155.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a primary school. They added "woolly mammoth" four times to the list of animals at the San Diego Zoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) using .10, .11, and .12. A fifth being a spelling correction. Out of 26 edits since Apr 24, 15 were reverted. In 2025, seven of the eight edits were reverted. Should a school block be placed on the range or should I just keep removing "woolly mammoth"? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped. Perhaps they ran out of Woolly Mammoths? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 23:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Ehhh. Since Jan 1, I count 4 Woolly Mammoths, 1 poophead, and a shockingly somewhat useful erudite edit to BBC One. And they seem to be losing interest. Looking back to 2024, a couple of bad edits a month. Range block seems to be overkill. If they persist in perseverating SD Zoo Mammoth edits, perhaps a page block would be ok. But currently, I'd just watch and wait. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, if it does need a block at some point, it's a much smaller range - 216.30.155.8/29. A whole /24 would be overkill for even a large school. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 19 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.

"Legal Issues"

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.

---

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

Do edit summaries directing users not to revert them with "(legal issues)" constitute a legal threat? Ratnhastin did just that ([290], [291], [292]). This is related to the Sambhaji hoopla. I wanted to see what other admins thought instead of immediately blocking. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/fir-filed-derogatory-edits-chhatrapati-sambhaji-wikipedia-profile-9849244/

I have been sued, legal issues refers to the troubles I'm facing. It is not a threat. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

But you directed other users to not revert you citing those legal troubles? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine a situation where they felt they "needed" to say that. As long as Ratnahastin is not going to re-revert if they are reverted, I think we can let this slide. I don't even know if I agree with their edits or not, but I have quite a bit of sympathy for someone subjected to this kind of threat from an increasingly authoritarian state (give it a few more months, I may even have first-hand knowledge!). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Floq. This editor may be getting advice that they need to show they're trying hard. I wonder if it actually might be helpful to an editor in this situation if they were pblocked from an article. Valereee (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Might be a little wikilawyery, but WP:LEGAL specifically says A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself, i.e., Ratnahastin would need to be the one sueing the editor who reverted them. In this case, Ratnahastin is the one being sued, so asking other editors not to revert is for their own safety in good faith, even if it's still restrictive as the rationale discourages. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is a legal threat, or rather the legal threat isn't from this user. It's more a plea to WP:NOTCENSORED if anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm still playing catch-up on some of the discussions about this. Ratnahastin might have been 'asked' to make the reverts with the don't revert. This doesn't mean that other editors can't revert? Knitsey (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. This makes sense to me that Ratnahastin is not the ones threatening a suit and thus this is not a legal threat. Tarlby makes a good point about assuming good faith as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: if you haven't already, I would encourage you to contact WMF's Trust and Safety team (using the ca@ address). They may be able to provide some assistance if you have a challenging situation, or alternatively point you in the right direction for other relevant resources. Daniel (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, this situation is very strange. Off the top of my head, Ratnahastin has my deepest sympathies, and @Hemiauchenia has my fuck yeah! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• So, taking into account that Ratnahastin is evidently being forced to make changes under duress...should we block their account for the time being as being effectively compromised? Revert changes they make with this justification? I'm not aware of any precedent or guidelines along these lines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, it bears thinking. Ping to @Jimbo Wales if he has any guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I believe the WMF has already effectively caved to the Indian Government, so I have none of the faith in T&S and Jimbo that others might still have. I'd suggest we just leave Ratnahastin alone, to avoid rubbing salt in the wound. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam "Leave alone" as in "let edits like [293] stand"? It's not the only one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, I think those should be reverted if someone wants to (I see Hemiauchenia has done so on at least a few). I mean leave alone as in don't block the account. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Man, I lost faith in Jimbo years ago, after a polite correction I gave him was treated as a personal slight. The man's ego is paper-thin.

  I agree that we can't let the edits stand, but that's not a reason to (currently) block the account. That should only be the next step if the edits become disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Rosguill vis-à-vis a GF block. Not only would it be in the best interest of the project, but may (though I can't say definitively) be in the best interest of the editor to temporarily lose the technical ability to make or revert edits. As someone who was, myself, sued for a BLP I can appreciate that the editor may not be able to more clearly articulate the specifics of their individual circumstance. Chetsford (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Rémi Mathis comes to mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

We also have the option of just p-blocking them from mainspace, which would prevent further disruption without excising them from the community or WP-space work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

But why from all of main space? Valereee (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it's only 3 articles that are affected _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think either option is good and wholeheartedly support a block in whatever form. Chetsford (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If an editor is forced to edit by an external force then blocking them from doing so is best for the editor and for the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Heraklios 21:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, I agree with you. In fact, I would like to draw your attention on Rajput article and its talk page and articles associated with Rajput caste. For a considerably long time, Ratnahastin has been involved in pov edits and removal of content, which according to them, is derogatory to Rajput caste in association with another user. Since, most of the wikipedia admins are unaware of the social groups of India,they utilised the loopholes to cite technical terms and edit summaries making it appear as productive discussion to do unconstructive edits. This legal issue on the part of Indian government, they are facing has stemmed from the positive and negative outlook one holds for different social groups. Since, Marathas are considered as formidable enemy of Rajputs, I can see why that stuff was added by them on the article of Sambhaji Maharaj, which led Indian government to file an FIR against them. In order to avoid selective disruption on such articles, at least a topic ban is necessary. Tagging Vanamonde93, who was earlier involved in several cases involving Ratnahastin and LukeEmily too for more light on Rajput. Adamantine123 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I had a misunderstanding which has been solved. I have contacted the Wikipedia trust and safety team as suggested here, and they have responded. It is literally pathetic of you to find an opportunity to finally get rid of me. Such a battleground mentality cannot be tolerated here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Adamantine123, your proposal here is presented as if it built off of my suggestion, but it does nothing of the sort. It also lacks diffs, making it aspersions in addition to opportunistic. This is astoundingly poor form and I'm about a hair's breadth away from issuing a logged warning on the spot. File a proper case if you have one to make. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Rosogulla , I don't think anything will help now anymore . 2409:40C2:3D:E608:E8D0:EAFF:FE01:1029 (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ratnahastin has made similar edits before [294]. I assume they are attempts to cover his ass rather than something he has been asked directly to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  A block would prevent them from covering their ass. I don't see why admins would want to get a fellow user in more legal trouble by blocking them. Nakonana (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Nakonana, because if they're blocked from a particular article after having tried to "fix" it in a way that corresponds to the wishes of the person who is suing them, that may tend to give them plausible deniability. It's not to get them in more trouble. It's to help them out of trouble. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Precisely: they've already done everything they can do to remove the content in question; we would be preventing them from being further compelled to edit war against Hemiauchenia or otherwise make edits that would not benefit the encyclopedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have no intention on removing the content any more, so a block is not necessary. - Ratnahastin (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Good enough for me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but for those considering writing something on this incident in a WP-article, Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government_and_Wikipedia might be the place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• My opinion is that it is too early to know what to do. We can only speculate, and there's lots of that here, but don't have enough information to go forward. Given the lack of knowledge as to what the best course is, leaving things status quo seems appropriate for now. I also suggest that Arbcom or Trust and Safety make the decision, as they have the proper venue to evaluate such sensitive issues. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Recommend closing this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:11, 21 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.

Brand new user forging signatures on a bunch of non-admin closures

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.

---

Fijiower (talk · contribs) is a brand-new account that is closing a bunch of AFDs and signing them whammy rather than with their user name. Sorry for posting here, but the admins I normally go to are unavailable... .and also thought someone here might remember some similar action of which this could be a ban-evading sock or somesuch. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. If they can give a good explanation why there are actually here to write an encyclopedia, and they simply hit all the wrong buttons while testing, I'll listen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be an impressive feat of persuasion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is that "Buick" driver sockpuppet. He would come in with a new account and start closing AFDs as "No consensus". I have a terrible memory for sockpuppets but if a Checkuser browses by, I'm sure they will know who I'm referring to. We're just lucky that this one got caught fairly early before they had closed dozens of deletion discussions. They tended to create several socks around the same time so if you see this happening again over the weekend, please report them here or at AIV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz That does ring a bell! This [295] might be related, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 21 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.

Atlantic diet

WP:ANI|user:Jotamar reported (once again: known from previous disruptive and belligerent conduct in pages regarding Portugal and or Spain). Because of continued, poor 'corrections' on the Atlantic diet page with short-sighted, incorrect and counterproductive 'contributions': instead of accurate or constructive content, in acceptable English, this user has a tendency to disrupt and manipulate facts in matters that they do not appear to known enough of. Because this is well over the 3rd reversal, this editor has been reported for vandalism. Not the first time: it was made abundantly clear on past incidents that no interaction is wanted from my end because: Wikipedia needs editors up to standard, not vandals whose contributions are distorted, nationalistic views on topics, and whose conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Melroross (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC) I have removed the {{ANInotice}} template that Melroross mistakenly appended to the end of this compliant instead of posting it to the talk page of the user reported. Someone else has already helpfully noticed the user reported on the behalf of Meloross. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Melroross, you are expected to provide diffs or links to specific edits that violate policies and guidelines. Did you read the notice at the top of this page that says This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems and also says If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page. Have you discussed your concerns at User talk: Jotamar? I see nothing recent there. I know that you have not discussed your concerns at Talk:Atlantic diet because there are no conversations there. Your comment above indicates that you think that edit warring and vandalism are the same thing. They are not the same and accusations of vandalism require convincing evidence that you have not provided. In conclusion, you need to provide much better evidence that intervention by administrators is required. I am unconvinced at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Used Talk as advised. Thank you both Melroross (talk) Melroross (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Taking advantage of this section already opened by Melroross, I'd like to know how can I deal with this editor that right now is making false accusations against me. See Talk:Atlantic diet#Atlantic diet's geographical, socio-cultural distribution (as it stands now), particularly the third paragraph, beginning with 2). Thanks, --Jotamar (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, can Administrators please deal with this editor Jotamar? I refer to a pattern of historical incidents that this user has both partaken in and entertained. And continues as seen here. Thank you. Melroross (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You just tried to alert the user "Administrators" and not the actual administrators. Silly mistakes everyone makes! The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 15:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Melroross: accusing other editors of misbehaviour without providing evidence is a personal attack. Please do not complain about editor conduct on talk pages like you did at Talk:Atlantic diet. Talk pages are for improving articles, not for bickering. I hope we can avoid a WP:Boomerang sanction here for battleground editing. Can you please remove your personal attacks there, Melroross? And withdraw this complaint, as there seems little merit in it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Melroross: I see you've replied (without giving sources), but you've not struck the personal attacks. Can you please do this, so we can move on from here? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear Femke, if you look at the activity on this Article: I did not start reverting and used sources (not always ideal, but generally accepted) which were either conveniently omitted or interpreted from a fixated lens. You will also see that apart from going from a Stub, I have gradually gathered data and added new sub-sections and created the same article in several other languages. I do these contributions on and off, voluntarily and in good faith and fairness because it gives me enjoyment, away from academia. What I will not tolerate is a pattern of resentful, targeted reversals and consistent cynical, passive-aggressive conduct. I have encountered some very unpleasant situations with editors over the years: without fail Spanish and sometimes Brazilian. This particular editor has been interfering with my contributions for years. I trust and hope that you have advised them to refrain from warring and cultivate common civility. If I never have to interact with or witness more pointless reversals, I'd be ecstatic. Thank you for reading. Melroross (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Bugs?

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 Bushranger (talk · contribs), voorts (talk · contribs) and AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs), I'd like to ask why three successive reports appeared to have been arbitrarily closed and bundled into one whole closed affair when they have clearly been not resolved, particularly with Riodeniro9 (talk · contribs), who is continuing to paste problematic images here? Borgenland (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears to have been debugged. Borgenland (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to ask what you are talking about (particularly what you mean by "here"), but it seems now that I don't have to mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 22 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.

Please help with IPv6 block

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've revdel'd a disgusting personal attack in an edit summary here and blocked the /64 range for two weeks. Unfortunately, it turns out the individual has access to more than a /64, as an even worse edit summary attack promptly appeared here. That takes the problem out of my competence zone. Can somebody do something? The victim should not have to face stuff like this on Wikipedia (compare their pleas here on my page). I've semi'd the article where this has been happening, but that seems unlikely to stop the attacks. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC).

I blocked Special:Contributions/2409:40D0:3080:0:0:0:0:0/42 for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I love you, thank you so much. Bishonen | tålk 10:05, 22 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 75.186.153.250

75.186.153.250 (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 other than flooding their talk page with whatever's going on here. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and possible Canvassing

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 (talk · contribs) has been reverted multiple times in 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision for inserting unsourced content with misleading summaries [296] [297] [298], not to mention what appears to be a WP:OWN comment on the talk page [299]. Then they proceed to talk pages of users who reverted them (me and @Aviationwikiflight, falsely accuse us of improper editing and make demands of us to restore their edits before trying to intimidate us for things they should have done properly and in the first place per WP:BURDEN. See User talk:Aviationwikiflight#Reason, User talk:Aviationwikiflight#Previous and User talk:Borgenland#Statistics. Finally they appear to be canvassing, and now harassing other users as seen in this comment in User talk:UtherSRG#Question. Borgenland (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: They just inserted themselves into something they shouldn't have also barged into. See User talk:UtherSRG#ANI. Borgenland (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

And for the record, they removed their ANI notice with another misleading edit summary in case someone accuses me of negligence [300]. Borgenland (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

[301] making WP:ASPERSIONS on an unrelated topic at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#Proposed overhaul of introduction - 15 Feb. Borgenland (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that Engage01 has already been reported twice at this noticeboard recently (i.e. since 2025 began), here and here, with both reports resulting in sanctions. Though to be fair, the sanction that second time was a two-way IBAN, so not just against Engage01. NewBorders (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

How are you involved with this, NewBorders? Engage01 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors are allowed to join this discussion, as with any. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not involved. I am providing context that I find to be potentially useful or relevant concerning this particular discussion that involves you.

If I might make a suggestion, instead of questioning the presence of uninvolved editors that leave their opinion as they are allowed to, you may want to address the issues currently being raised by Borgenland. NewBorders (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Borgenland is following me on the site. Engage01 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I was awaiting when you would address these issues and in the meantime see if there are other topics that may be worth editing. If I really wanted to hound you I would have reverted you entirely rather than partially remove irrelevant and undue info in the lead of Jill Biden, not to mention that your edit history speaks for itself, particularly now that you have an outstanding record of misbehavior that was already presented by @NewBorders and which I merely identified as a an example. I suggest you read WP:OWN again and fix yourself before you bury yourself deeper into a block. Borgenland (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

And you are not the only person in this project who has Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision in their 1-month watchlist, so it would be very easy for you to expose your WP:NOTHERE behavior and provide more fuel in this report without me having to scour your diffs. Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to accuse someone of WP:HOUNDING, you must provide diffs that clearly support this. Not only has Borgenland contributed to much more than just this dispute with you, since they have been actively editing here since 2022, and not only have several users complained about your behavior at this point or otherwise questioned your editing, but as far as I can tell, this current discussion only concerns a singular page, 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision. Do you have any evidence that they are specifically targeting you and decided to follow you to this page (specifically to disrupt your "enjoyment of editing", or "the project generally", rather than fixing what they perceived as poor edits, which would be the deciding factor)?

Because otherwise, what you just wrote counts as an aspersion. NewBorders (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The [Palisades entry] provided above echoes what this current ANI is all about. Surprising how they continue to display WP:IDNHT following a 1-week block. Borgenland (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Despite Engage01 (talk · contribs)'s unconstructive way of starting a discussion on my talk page, [302] I explained to them why I removed their unsourced addition. [303] [304] They were warned several times to engage with civility and in a constructive manner, [305] [306] [307] but even then, they continued to demonstrate an "WP:IDHT" behaviour, insisting that others do the work for them and find the sources, continuously insisting that those who disagree with them are the problems and are the ones who are uncivil, additionally stating that: "I am saying please remove yourself from this topic." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked Engage01 for two weeks for egregious battleground editing. Bishonen | tålk 15:11, 22 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:GOAT Bones231012 and their treatment of others

• GOAT Bones231012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no desire to deal with this user, despite what they may think--see their talk page. I suppose it was this edit by Bagumba that led them to refer to Bagumba as excrement, here and here. Others on the editor's shit list are SMcCandlish, Bringingthewood, and GiantSnowman--see the history of the user page. Blocked for a brief period for harassment, they chose to continue trolling. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Indef and remove talk page, WP:NOTHERE, imho. GiantSnowman 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I had removed an earlier version of their hit list on 8 Feb as WP:POLEMIC,[308] after which I perhaps became their muse. Warned them on 10 Feb about WP:GAMING the system.[309] Seems to be continuing their MO WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and juvenile retorts on their talk page. —Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Given a final warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The only reason an 'after the fact' message was sent to him by me was to say that I was the one upset with that remark he left there. I asked Drmies in a way that maybe I could remove that sentence without getting myself in trouble. Drmies took care of it. There are many rules here, and somehow I thought that what GOAT did and continued to do .. with administrators being part of the degradation ... an early block was definitely warranted. I consider Bagumba a friend, and if GOAT comes back as an IP user etc., because he surely won't let the Muhammad Ali thing go, I'd like to have a leg to stand on, or at least an administrator I can go to for help. Much appreciated. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Me? On someone's shitlist? Surely you jest! Heh. This certainly brings to mind WP:WISDOM, which correctly points out that when multiple long-term participants in a system are in agreement about the basics of its operation (e.g. how WP policies, guidelines, and community operate) they can seem like a conspiratorial "cabal" or "mafia" to a newcomer who does not understand the established system and wants to buck its workings to get a result they personally like better. In reality, those longer-term parties may be in substantial disagreement with each other on many things that the newbie simply isn't aware of yet. Anyway, I'm well-adjusted to the fact that it isn't possible for any rule system (like our style guide and other WP:P&G) to make everyone happy about everything, and that someone unhappy about some pet peeve policy or guideline line item, when they're not getting traction on changing it to reflect their subjective preference, is going to blame the principal shepherds of that ruleset and claim to be a victim, instead of accepting that their preference and its rationale has not convinced the rest of the user community to accept it as the new rule. If I'm remembering correctly, this person is mad at me because I disagreed with them on capitalizing "the" in mid-sentence when used with nicknames. So, what we have here is throwing your toys out of the pram when confronted with a writing-style matter that doesn't suit one's personal habits. There are psychosocial reasons this happens more often about style matters than other ones, like what sorts of sources are reliable, or what kinds of claims about living biographical subjects are permissible which which kinds of sourcing. Anyway, I don't have enough other experience of GOAT_Bones231012 to !vote yea or nay on a particular approach like an indef; my default with regard to such things is to extend an additional chance after further explanation of policy. It's better to bring a new-ish user up to speed on behavioral norms like WP:POLEMIC, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, than to just kick someone out at first (or even second or maybe third) sign of trouble, as long as the trouble is not particularly disruptive and they might become a more contributive editor. We need more editors rather than fewer, after all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Multiple people have been removing their offending edits while explaining the site's norms. Only weeks later have they been blocked, which still stands at 31 hours. It's on them if they choose to remain petulant. —Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for helping someone out and burying the hatchet in the future. It's sad to say, the horrible way it went with Bagumba's simple message on doing things a certain way, it may take a little time. As of now, if you try to send GOAT a WP or MOS explanation of how to do things, plan on getting the 'Cujo hearing the telephone ring response'. He does not adhere to authority. People want change, I get it ... but rules are rules. Even a thick-headed idiot from the Bronx understands that. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Potential MEAT situation

There is potentially a WP:MEAT situation with a WP:SPA and two IP addresses working in conjunction to try to dodge WP:3RR on List of foreign electoral interventions. Accounts in question:

• Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 190.148.50.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 186.151.158.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-Amigao (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat made

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 kindly request Maharashtra Cyber and Wikipedia admins to review this user's actions."

Here you go. Another fun Sambhaji talk page episode. I feel like we're going to be getting a lot more of these from new SPA accounts. Silverseren^C 02:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Notified. Also looks like they've been clearing off their talk page of prior warnings, calling it "nonsense" in the edit summary. Silverseren^C 02:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:23, 23 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.

Intphuman

WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 23 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. Intphuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is trying to vandalize everything Intphuman (talk) 05:25, 23 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.

Legal threat

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.

---

By User:Rtshawnee at Talk:Ridgetop Shawnee#Wiki Page Vandalism must STOP. Clear cut: This vandalism is directly effecting our operations as the misinformation added to this page is causing confusion. Our Chief is also our Attorney from Hazzard Kentucky, We are huddling up to decide what to do if this vandalism continues. We are considering civil litigation, that is a promise. 00:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Legal threats removed, user already had a legal threat warning on their user talk page before. I'm suggesting a indef because this user is WP:NOTHERE with chronic WP:OWN behaviors. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:09, 23 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.

Disruptive editing by 209.140.48.22

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.

---

209.140.48.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made at least a hundred test edits (adding then self-reverting text), pinging users: 20 to my account in the last two hours, and leaving useless messages on user talk pages. 209.140.48.22 was blocked for same for 24 hours and started backup less than ten minutes after block expired. Would it be possible to block 209.140.48.22? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko. The block will expire on 12/23/25. 209.140.48.22 (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Still pinging from their talk page. Please disable talk page editing? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

you might want to contact a recently active admin directly. Most people are inactive at this time 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't gotten pinged by the anon for 45 minutes+. Close to minimize distractions. I'll open another ticket if the problem reoccurs. Adakiko (talk) 09:24, 23 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.

I'd like to report a rogue admin

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.

---

How do I do that? 88.212.130.115 (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Your best option is to contact the arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list 2602:FE43:1:4652:39FC:3F1B:858E:DB9E (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) IP, you've made three edits in your entire history of editing Wikipedia, and the first one of the year is this ANI report. Because I don't see this IP or a /24 range interacting with an admin, I'm going to kindly ask if you have edited on a different IP/account before. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Their network is advertised as a /20, why would you only check a /24? 74.254.224.90 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

88.212.128.0/20 doesn't have any other edits since 7 February. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I bet it's me. I can't get a break lately. Chetsford (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry Chetsford, I'll report you. 46.253.189.222 (talk) 11:49, 23 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.

Meters: Gatekeeping and assuming bad faith

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 would like to report concerns about Meters, a Wikipedia user.

The user performed an edit on the page Common year starting on Wednesday, which would display this:

"The current year, 2025, is a common year starting on Wednesday in the Gregorian calendar, and the next such year will be 2031"

However, most editors disagree with that edit, and they agree with the one below.

"The current year, 2025, is a common year starting on Wednesday in the Gregorian calendar. The last such year was 2014, and the next one will be 2031"

The problem is that Meters tells others to discuss their edits on the talk page, but won't do it to their own edits, even when removing information like that is disagreed upon, and done suddenly.

What's even worse is that editors who disagree with Meters on information like that by restoring the "last such year" information (because Meters just removed the "last such year" info without discussing it on the talk page.), are accused by Meters of having their edits deemed "non-constructive", even to new editors, as seen in these three links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_year_starting_on_Wednesday&oldid=1275189072
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_year_starting_on_Wednesday&oldid=1275280983
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.7.248.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.7.248.6
2600:4040:2302:5D00:6908:899D:6529:E7CB (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You haven't notified them about this as is required, you haven't discussed this issue with them prior to bringing it here (not from this IP range at least} and this is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

oh then, may i please have this deleted then? 2600:4040:2302:5D00:A362:5D4D:41DF:F7C9 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that the claim that Meters hasn't discussed on the talk page is false. Meters has explained why they made their edit here Talk:Common year starting on Monday#Previous example not needed when the current year is of the particular type. No one else seems to have joined this discussion, so I have no idea how anyone can claim "most editor disagree". The way to establish what most editors agree with or disagree with i.e. consensus is to actually talk about it which Meters seems to have started, but no one else seems to have done. So the only thing we can really say is Meters has an opinion but no other editor seems to have tried to explain their position. What "most editors" agree or disagree with, who knows? We definitely do not establish consensus or what "most editors" agree or disagree with by counting how many people participated in an edit war. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear. I don't know if I'd say Meters has been quite perfect in this dispute. In particular, I think a link or mention of the talk comment in an edit summary would have been useful. Also giving even a level 1 disruptive edit warning for a single edit which seems to be basically a content dispute even if the IP seemed to have some idea of the history but didn't join the discussion, was unnecessary. (For better or worse since it's an IP it's hard to be sure any of the previous edits were by the same editor, so it's fair to consider it a single edit.) However in terms of behaviour around the content dispute, the editor who has actually tried to discuss on the talk page is nearly always going to come across far better and closer to "winning" (for lack of a better term) both in behavioural terms and the content dispute, than 100 editors who did not. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Geolocation data suggests that there is an IP-hopping SPA with a long history of problematic edits to calendar year articles, but I was wrong to lump 46.7.248.6 in with that user, and I apologize to them. Meters (talk) 22:18, 22 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:Sophia.Parker.14200502 - CIR?

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.

---

Sophia.Parker.14200502 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor created their account on 26 October 2024, but only started editing from it on 3 Feb 2025. They are making a lot of edits, and a lot of mistakes. They were briefly blocked on 10 February for disruptive editing.

Several editors have pointed out problems with their editing: they have not replied to any posts on their talk page, and have continued making the same mistakes.

It appears, WP:AGF, to be a matter of WP:CIR: repeatedly they:

1. replace link formatting using "<<<"
2. replace the code for a re-used reference by splitting it into a ref and a closure
3. muddle links by repeating some or all of the link text outside the link ("Barbadianian" here).

They have been told about all these, and warned for disruptive edits. They also make some constructive edits and some unnecessary edits (removing blank spaces from infobox formatting: some editors would disagree that this is an improvement).

The latest occurrence is this edit which duplicates the word "film" in the lead sentence.

I ask Administrators to block this editor again, as their edits include too many errors which are damaging the encyclopedia. PamD 14:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

My GF is wearing thin: a very recent edit still changes the re-used ref format, and garbles text around a link to leave the sentence "Frei is in a married with Anne Morriss". And I now see that this editor does actually know where their talk page is, because they blanked it on 10 Feb, shortly before being blocked. PamD 14:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 23 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.

Mistletoe-alert (electric boogaloo)

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

• Mistletoe-alert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This editor is changing infobox data on many large companies (eg. Walmart), removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. This newish editor has had numerous warnings, ANI, and a block. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Read the responses to your posts on my talk page. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we get a swift closure for this one? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like what you did is remove the old data and its supporting citations, and then provided new data without including a citation as to where you got it. What you need to do instead is supply the sources for your edits in the article at the time you change the information. Providing the links on your user talk page does not help our readers at all. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good place to learn how to do this critical step. Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm currently reverting the edits and adding sources. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 137.101.88.147

137.101.88.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles and making unexplained date changes, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, and repeated unexplained date changes on YouTube Kids: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Malhar1234 and language-warring

Malhar1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was warned about WP:NOINDICSCRIPT as long as six months ago, and repeatedly so. However, aside from a spate of incredibly bad comma edits (over several months, despite many warnings; see [310] for the batch from a week ago), they've mostly continued to make widespread edits to force certain languages forward in prominence at the expense of others, in clear violation of the spirit of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, and have continued edit-warring to do so. Here are some recent examples:

1. [311], reverted with explanation, their response
2. [312], [313] as part of an edit-war that they've been pursuing for months [314][315] almost certainly with a sock-puppet, see the open SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malhar1234 that is waiting on attention from administrators
3. [316] [317] [318]
4. [319] [320]

I was hoping this would be settled quickly at SPI but since it's been a few days and they're still up to the same bad behavior, I am coming here to request they be blocked. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The edit-warring is continuing: [321] [322]. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

User:GDX420

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 here to report the recent actions of User:GDX420. In the past 24 hours, he has nominated several articles for deletion without properly doing a Google search or taking WP:BEFORE and WP:CONRED into account. He nominated the Munachi Abii, Victor Thompson and Adeoye Aribasoye articles, all of which are notable. This user has failed to read the criterion outlined in WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NPOL. User:GDX420 has also chosen to vote two times in the same AFD. Evidence of this behavior can be seen here and here. In this edit to his userpage, which was done today (February 22, 2025), he claimed to be a proud member of Wikiproject Nigeria. I find this odd because he never edited Nigeria-related articles prior to February 21, 2025 per his contributions page. Someone who has not edited Nigeria-related articles prior to February 21 cannot be a "proud member" of Wikiproject Nigeria. In the last 24 hours, he has nominated more than seven Nigerian-related BLP articles. I don't find any of this a coincidence. In this edit, he removed a table by falsely concluding that the awards listed are not anotable. Simply saying the awards in the article are not notable is not grounds for removal. In this edit, he redirected the Headies 2024 article without a justifiable reason. The awards ceremony is a couple of months away and the nominations are already out. I don't know who told him that an award ceremony cannot have a stand-alone page before the event is actually held. It's evident that User:GDX420 has made Nigeria-related articles a target for deletion and has visited my userpage and made edits to a couple of articles I worked extensively on. Evidence of this can be seen here and here.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not involved in all this, but it does seem like this isn't GDX's first trip to AfD (url). This user's edit history seems to indicate that they've previously been warned about using AfD inappropriately. In a vacuum, I'd say that these nominations are just poorly made (assuming that all of the Keep votes there are true), but given this editor's previous history, I'm inclined to suspend my normal assumption of good faith. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, User:Versace1608

Thank you for raising your concerns with me. You've raised some valid points which I will address in due course.

I'll start at the bottom of the list and work my way back up in reverse order one item at a time if that's OK with you?

So let's start with my edit to C-Real

I'm happy to explain this edit and I can understand how the summary content removal may have been difficult to accept giving the work that you have done on this article in good-faith.

I removed the personal life section due to concerns that it may jeopardise the privacy of both C-Real and his mother.

Here is the text that I removed unilaterally.

In 2014, C-Real presented a Hyundai Santa Fe to his mother for Valentine's Day.

I removed this text because while C-Real may be a public-figure we prefer to show a bit of restraint and only include the material that shows readers why that subject is notable. Additionally, secondary sources are important for verifying information about living persons. However, supposing NYT had published a story about this gentleman purchasing a Hyundai for his mother, many Wikipedians myself included would probably leave this out of the article because, as I explained in my edit summary, the car that his mother drives or how she acquired it simply isn't the kind of content that Wikipedia's readers come here for. Nor is it the sort of content that we would usually feel comfortable publishing. We wouldn't want people thinking we're a celebrity gossip magazine now would we?

I did remove the information unilaterally and without a courtesy note/discussion because that is the protocol that editors are obliged to follow when they encounter WP:BLP issues, especially when there's an WP:NPF involved.

Are you satisfied with my rationale for removing the Hyundai from the page? I'm happy to explain further if need be. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 03:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in any of the other AfDs and don't have a view on the other issues that have been raised, but I did want to draw attention to a comment I left on an AfD that this user started the other day at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bank. In short, several of their recent AfD nominations include source assessment tables that bear almost no ressemblance to the sources actually used in the articles, with some containing entirely non-existent sources. In the Kuda Bank AfD, their source assessment table includes links to https://www.ft.com/content/xxxxx and https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/nigerias-kuda-bank-secures-xx-million-in-latest-funding-round-2024-10-20/ (note the "xx-million" in the url), when the article doesn't contain any FT or Reuters sources and no articles matching those descriptions seem to exist. In the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeoye Aribasoye, which they have now partially fixed after I pointed it out, their source assessment table included sources like "ExampleNews1.com" and "ExampleNews2.com" with made-up details (see this version). Several of their other source assessment tables also bear very little ressemblance to the actual article's sourcing, including those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yadah (musician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Thompson (musician). I had been assuming good faith and was hoping that they would just start creating proper source assessment tables for future AfD nominations, but it seems relevant in the context of the other issues with AfD conduct raised here. MCE89 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The source tables are absolute messes and even when the AFDs themselves are legitimate, they cause a mess in the AFDs these are being posted in; I'm looking at the Yadah one where you have a Delete that largely references the source table even though the table has little connection with the sources. GDX420 has responded here very strangely as well, with a long explanation of an edit made to C-Real, which nobody's even said anything about, while also calling the subject "MC Cereal" and "Mr. Cereal." I think a block from AFDs is necessary and perhaps more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the mistake and left an apology note at the AfD. I appear to have misspelled B-Real but I did not mean any disrespect to the subject. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 10:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I get a strong sense of AI-generated content from both the editor's replies, and now this. NewBorders (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Versace1608 asked me about my edit to C-Real (rapper) in relation to a personal life section about a Valentine's day gift that he bought for his mother that I deleted per WP:BLPPRIVACY. See below.

"It's evident that User:GDX420 has made Nigeria-related articles a target for deletion and has visited my userpage and made edits to a couple of articles I worked extensively on. Evidence of this can be seen here and here."

- Versace

I am happy to address the rest of the points raised but I am conscious that I have been typing flat out for what seems like days and I need a rest. The AfDs have not concluded yet. Therefore, sufficient time has not passed to determine whether my nominations are wrong or right.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you're spending so much time making comments about info related to the C-Real (rapper) article. I don't have any issues with the edits you made to said article, and this particular discussion isn't about the C-Real article. It is about you nominating several Nigeria-related articles for deletion without taking into account notability policies like WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NPOL. You never edited any Nigeria-related articles prior to two days ago and it's quite odd that you are now interested in Nigeria. Instead of trying to make improvements to Nigeria-related articles, you have chosen to nominate several articles for deletion. In my opinion, your AFD nominations have been disruptive to say the least.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I will discuss my nominations in more depth as the AfDs roll on. However, after correcting the source evaluation tables and conducting further research into Yadah (musician) and Victor Thompson (musician) I can't find any reasons to withdraw these two nominations but I have discovered some fantastic music so thank you for bringing these sounds into my orbit.

In the meantime, may I please ask you to clarify which of my edits to C-Real (rapper) you weren't so keen on because it isn't clear per you earlier comment where you linked to WP's page about C-Real (rapper) see below;

Evidence of this can be seen here

I'm just curious and if you think I removed the personal life section erroneously then I'm happy to listed to your reasons for the objection. Which of my edits are you referring to, specifically?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources from the AfD highlighted above are AI created hoaxes, and this editor also has apparent UPE connections. I will indefinitely block them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:58, 23 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 behaviour

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.

---

Wanted to report some really strange IP behaviour. I've already applied a 24-hour editblock to make it stop for the time being, but I still want to document it because additional eyes may be needed in case they come back with a different IP number or resume the same crap once the block expires. The IP number in question was 209.140.48.22.

The situation is that they'll apply an edit like this, then self-revert their own edit themselves, but then post to the article's talk page, the category talk page, their own user talk page or other users' talk pages to request that somebody else come readd the same categories they've already reverted themselves on, invariably followed by a long string of pings of random users who don't have anything to do with it. (I'm one of the victims they were targeting with the pings, but I'm not the only one, and there's a string of very annoyed "cut it out and leave me alone" messages following the trail from several other editors besides me as well.)

See also [323], [324], [325], [326] and [327] for additional examples of the same add-revert-request cycle.

So, again, I've blocked them for 24 hours but just wanted to notify people here to keep an eye out in case this resumes later today under a different IP or tomorrow when the block expires. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the /24, they’ve done this before, at least since last November, but in much smaller volume of edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:40, 22 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.

Photomenal calling my edits disruptive and throwing out false accusations

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.

---

Photomenal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on reverting all my edits on Saudi-related topic [328] [329] because he doesn't seem to like them and is throwing out false sockpuppetry accusations in those edit summaries and on this talk page and for some reason did not open an SPI on me 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Their talkpage shows that they have been warned for editwarring multiple times before and was told not to include useless galleries on talkpages but still reverted me on the hijaz article (linked above) and called me a sock 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

They also broke the 3rr on the Najd article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma They have deleted my reply to you and are still going on with those accusations 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:11, 23 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 176.90.173.189

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 IP 176.90.173.189 (previously 178.241.28.197, as they're from the same location: Geo 1, Geo 2) is a single-purpose vandal, who operates solely to change the Gulf of Mexico to gulf of america.

The first IP, after their only edit was reverted, was warned by two individuals. [330]

Then, as a new IP, they repeated their vandalism twelve hours later, [331] which was reverted, [332] and they were then warned by me (I forgot to sign the warning that time. This has since been corrected). [333]

Finally, a day later, they repeated their vandalism, [334], and was promptly reverted. [335]

It is clear that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, and thus need to be barred from the project. Additionally, the page they were vandalizing, Starship flight test 8, should receive some measure of protection. I submitted a request, which was archived before anyone responded. [336]

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.

Spam editor / Self promotion

Srilatha (actress) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor keeps adding bogus projects to Atlee (director)'s filmography (see [337]) and keeps editing List of Tamil film actresses, where they have listed themselves although I am sure such an actresses (named Srilatha) doesn't exist [338]. That IP is clearly them, which they used first, so I can't make a sockpuppet investigation.

At the very least, do not let them edit Atlee filmography (don't want to engage in edit war). Since they add bogus projects like Lion etc. Another IP (is it them?) has edited their own talk page claiming that they are in fact an actress [339] leading to COI (not sure if this is catfishing)?

I have left a message at their talk page User talk:Srilatha (actress) and a senior editor's talk page User talk:Ravensfire#Annoyed by a user, can you take action against them?. DareshMohan (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• @DareshMohan: Who, exactly, are you reporting? "This editor" doesn't narrow it down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger: Srilatha (actress). DareshMohan (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, apologies - I overlooked that because I wasn't expecting a username page to be formatted like an articlename. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Added user links at top of report to make it easier to see the user's name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't merely list "an" actress named Srilatha, there are at least four of them. At the bare minimum, this violates the username policy. Ravenswing 10:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok they is blocked from article space as they edited after this was opened. If they respond somewhere feel free to unblock at any time. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Riodeniro9

Riodeniro9 (talk · contribs) an SPA sock of blocked user Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been pasting non-FOP images in Philippine articles and engaging in WP:IDNHT behavior despite multiple warnings on talk page. Request preventive block from articlespace at the very minimum while outcome at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naniwoofg is pending. Diffs are available at the ongoing SPI report. Borgenland (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Every diff they made has been edit warring with the same generic summary without bothering to explain [340] [341] [342] [343]. Borgenland (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Including one hoax summary of updating an infobox by replacing a 2020 photo with one taken in 2016 [344]. Borgenland (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I see the sockpuppet investigation is ongoing. The amount of disruption and edit warring going on is sufficient to block from article space at this time pending resolution of the investigation. In the block message, I invited the user to respond here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Any admin feel free to alter the block or unblock as appropriate without consulting me first. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 176.90.173.189

(Apologies for repeat of prior report, which I forgot to sign. But no, the IP has not made one edit: they've made three, two as the current IP and one as a past IP)

The IP 176.90.173.189 (previously 178.241.28.197, as they're from the same location: Geo 1, Geo 2) is a single-purpose vandal, who operates solely to change the Gulf of Mexico to gulf of america.

The first IP, after their only edit was reverted, was warned by two individuals. [141]

Then, as a new IP, they repeated their vandalism twelve hours later, [142] which was reverted, [143] and they were then warned by me (I forgot to sign the warning that time. This has since been corrected). [144]

Finally, a day later, they repeated their vandalism, [145], and was promptly reverted. [146]

It is clear that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, and thus need to be barred from the project. Additionally, the page they were vandalizing, Starship flight test 8, should receive some measure of protection. I submitted a request, which was archived before anyone responded. [147] Redacted II (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think any action is required at this time. The edits of this person, three edits over three days, have been adequately handled by reverts. Should it escalate, WP:AIV is the way to go. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Page protection is sorely needed.

(Also, three edits over the span of 1.5 days, not three edits over the span of three days)

This is from two days ago [345] from a different IP.

[346] from 2/21, done by an account with five edits.

[347] from 2/13 IP

[348] from 2/12 IP

[349] from 2/11 IP Redacted II (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The person you reported made one edit on 22 Feb[350], one edit on 23 Feb[351] and one edit on 24 Feb[352]. That’s three different days. As I say, all adequately handled by reverts. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

But over the span of ~36 hours. So yes, technically 3 days. But actually only 1.5.

And yes, its been handeled by reverts so far. But there is no reason to not protect the article (if not block the IP): having so many reverts in such a short time isn't ideal. Redacted II (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It being handled by reverts is, indeed, a reason not to protect the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it really better to dea; with consistent vandalism in spite of multiple warnings, or simply protect the article?

This is similar to SpaceX Starbase, where vandalism was being handeled by reverts, and was still protected. Redacted II (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Problematic COI editor

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Admitted hounding

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.

---

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

User admits to hounding in their veiled talk page reply, and I would request a block per WP:NOTHERE. They are upset about me nominating a page they created for deletion and also filing this SPI. Right after the SPI was closed, user nominates a page I created for deletion. This page is well outside the topic area that user edits so I asked them about it on their talk page which they stated "first of all, how does it feel to be wronged multiple times?" --CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay.  

Stop lying.  

- I never admitted to hounding or anything of the sort. Yes, I looked into your article creations out of curiosity and found an article that I believe is not notable. If that qualifies as 'hounding,' then there shouldn't be a public tool available to check that information. On the other hand, you have been hounding me and reverting my edits ever since I started editing.  

- You nominated a page that I edited, not one that I created.  

- I made the nomination before the SPI closed - look at the timestamps again. I had no way of knowing that the SPI would close almost a month and a half later on the same day.  

When I started editing an upcoming film article, you did everything you could to undermine me, assuming that I was a sock. You accused me in multiple places without any proof, yet the SPI closure ultimately proved you wrong. You were also proven wrong in your actions regarding the article. The editors at 3RR also pointed out that your actions were inappropriate.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491#c-ToBeFree-20250109194800-Red-tailed hawk-20250109171200

As a new editor, I am frustrated with this hostile behavior and the constant presence of your name on my talk page. And after all this, you're playing the victim?

I request that the admins seriously review his attitude toward other editors and his tendency to assume that everyone he dislikes or oppose him is a sock. A quick look at his talk page shows how he treats people who question his actions.

User talk:CNMall41/Archive 10#c-CNMall41-20241220185300-Sunuraju-20241220085700 - Civility huh?

I was completely demoralized by this hostility and was waiting for the SPI to close. In the meantime, I made some edits, clearly noting that they were without references, yet you reverted all of them altogether, citing the reason for just one edit. You didn’t even bother to check properly before reverting my edits.[353] That is what real hounding is.

Now that the SPI has been closed against his wishes, he has started a new accusation here. This kind of immature and hostile behavior should not be tolerated in a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

I demand a short ban on this editor to make him reflect on his language and behavior, as well as a permanent ban from my talk page. Shecose (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

First off, you can't demand anything. We're volunteers, and you cannot force anyone to do anything. Second, you have already asked CNMall to stay off your Talk page. That's the extent of a "ban" in this caes. If they violate it, you can then seek an admin to deal with the issue. But if you're only doing that because they're reporting issues with your editing, that's not going to reflect well on you.

Third, do not personally attack other editors, as you did with calling CNMall's editing immature and hostile behavior.

Finally, CNMall looking at your editing after a dispute and finding a problem is not itself WP:HOUNDing. But your immediate retaliatory nomination of a page for deletion is clearly a WP:POINT violation, and it's very clear that's what you meant it as. Especially with your Talk page comment first of all, how does it feel to be wronged multiple times? You filed that deletion nomination specifically to "hurt" CNMall, and that's disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. I withdraw the word demand and replace it with request. Sorry that I haven't given much thought before writing that.

To clarify my comment, "how does it feel to be wronged multiple times?", it has nothing to do with the article nomination. The nomination is simply calling for a discussion, as CNMall was not wronged there until the outcome. What I meant was their aspersions and arguments about the previous article, as well as their accusation of sockpuppetry against me on various places.

Additionally, I don't understand why the word immediate has been used to describe my nomination. The SPI filing and edit conflicts happened a month and a half ago, and my nomination was not a reactionary move. CNMall is falsely claiming that I nominated the article after the SPI closure, which is simply not true.

Imagine being accused of a crime you haven't committed, how would you feel when you are cleared? Now, how would you feel if the same accuser comes back with further accusations? Shecose (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a "crime" so your hyperbole is unwelcome. You're really taking this all far too personally. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• It is reasonably concerning, at least, when a brand new editor comes to Wikipedia and their first-ever edits are almost entirely restricted to a relatively obscure draft page for a commercial product (which films are), which happens to have been previously deleted as not notable. This is unusual editing behavior, or more precisely is very typical editing behavior in connection with coordinated commercial activity. Whether or not that is the case here, CNMall41 was reasonably justified in his SPI suspicions, and the assertion that you "looked into [his] article creations out of curiosity and found an article that I believe is not notable" does come across like you went looking for something to nominate for deletion out of personal animus. You need to be cognizant of how these things appear in the context of a project where long experience has tended to connect such behaviors to ill motives. BD2412 T 05:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  It would have been better if you had dug deeper before making assumptions or accusations. The article was already live when I first edited it, and it was either the same day or the very next day after its teaser was released. I searched for the article after watching the teaser and edited.

  If you consider his behavior normal without even acknowledging how it might have affected me, then I don't have much else to say here. Shecose (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Live or not, it is reasonable to air suspicions when a new editor engages in the predominant activity of working on a single article on a commercial subject that has previously been controversial. BD2412 T 18:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't live as the user would have you think. I moved it to draft space as it had been recreated by SOCKS many times (noted in the AfD dicussion). Shecose moved it to mainspace and then changed the name right after due to the many deletions of the page under "Toxic" and variations of "Toxic." Hence the SPI filing which user believes was me harassing them.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I said that when I first edited, it was a live article. It had been moved by @Bolly ka Badshah.[354] When I made my first edit on the article, it was still live.[355] You later moved it back to draft much later, after many more edits from me and other editors[356], which I opposed and moved back while also changing the name, as a longer name was mentioned in most of the references.

It is frustrating to have to explain these facts because it is difficult to tell whether you are deliberately misleading others or simply unaware of the timelines. Shecose (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Simply looking at someone's edit history, and even referencing it in a single discussion, isn't hounding. Often it's necessary to see if there are serious enough problems to raise them as conduct issues; and mentioning them to the user to try and talk things out before doing so is also reasonable. Hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. That is to say, they have to actually make edits on multiple pages while following you around, not just skim your edit history and raise a concern in one place. This isn't an endorsement of Shecose's behavior, which at a quick glance may have other problems, or their accusations, which at a glance may be WP:ASPERSIONs and have other issues. But it's not hounding and it's important to establish that fact, since if what they did was hounding then it would be impossible to enforce conduct-based policies at all because nobody could ever check to see if they're being violated or raise potential issues derived from someone's entire edit history. Hounding requires actually "poking" the victim in multiple locations, so to speak - the crux of it is about disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason, not privacy, since edits histories are public information. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, which is why I raised the issue on editor's talk page prior to wasting anyone's time at ANI. It was the response which caused me to come here as it shows they deliberately targeted a page because they are upset about the SPI ("how does it feel to be wronged multiple times" - "what audacity" - "and stay off my back now"). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Despite Shecose's aggressive denial above ("stop lying"), this response on their page does indeed sound just like a veiled admission of hounding ("how does it feel to be wronged multiple times?"). Shecose's 'clarification' of their phrasing in response to HandThatfFeeds above lacks all logic. And the way the AFD they opened for an article CNMall41 created is going, the article seems to be well notable. That, plus the "how does it feel" response, certainly supports the likelihood that the AFD was retaliatory. Most experienced editors above are pretty much agreeing with me above (Aquillon's post, the way I read it, is more about terminology), so I feel justified in blocking Shecose for 31 hours. This may be more symbolic, with little practical effect, since it's currently 4 days since Shecose last edited. Still, symbols have their use, in this case that of showing that using our processes for retaliation is unacceptable. Bishonen | tålk 22:45, 24 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.

WP: ASPERSIONS and WP: OUTING violations by Dmitry Bobriakov

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.

---

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

Dimitry is an editor that has made AfD nominations and subsequently accused others of being sockpuppets or possessing an undisclosed conflict of interest when they disagree with his nominations. These are serious accusations, but Dimitry has largely failed to provide evidence to back up these serious claims. Separately, Dimitry has threatened to out a user they disagree with.

In this AfD, Dimitry writes that “The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP: SOCK”. Several editors — NickCT, Oblivy, Espatie, and myself — warned them that AfD is not the appropriate venue to deal with sockpuppets or editors with a conflict of interest. The only evidence that Dimitry provided in any part of this discussion is that several users have disclosed Bluesky and Mastodon accounts on their user pages, which is plainly insufficient to establish that coordinated edits are occurring. Dimitry then went to ANI (see here) where they were again informed that a.) sockpuppet accusations belong at SPI, and b.) aspersions are not tolerated on Wikipedia.

Then, in this AfD, Dimitry writes that there is “a risk of a COI editor”. They provide no evidence to back up this claim, even though they have been told several times at this point to stop doing exactly this.

A user by the name of HARRISONSST recently commented on one of Dimitry’s AfDs. In response, Dimitry wrote this diff, claiming that “the wikipedia community will discover your real name”. This is plainly a violation of WP: OUTING. As that policy states, this is grounds for an immediate block.

I get that AfD can feel like a complex maze to navigate. There are a lot of policies that may or may not apply in certain discussions, and it can take time to learn the ropes. However, WP: ASPERSIONS and WP: OUTING are also always in force, including on AfDs. The threat of outing makes this issue to meet the standard of “urgent and intractable” that is necessary to bring this issue to ANI. Moreover, this user has been warned several times that their behavior is unacceptable, and continues to persist. I believe that this user should be either blocked from AfD or from editing entirely, but I will leave this for the community to discuss. Even if Dimitry is somehow right about everything they’ve said, the manner in which they conduct themselves — the lack of evidence, the threats of outing, etc. — is unprofessional and inappropriate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this complex post, I look forward to the rest of the editors who were somehow offended that the articles they worked on were flagged or deleted!

I will now try to answer you as clearly as I can, so that you don't have any more questions for me.

First of all, I am not obliged to provide your evidence, because technically I cannot. And all evidence is sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and processed by the User:331dot and User:Bilby administrators once they have time for it! I mention that all the warnings come from editors who don't know that for every action of mine that I do, strict proofs and explanations are provided!

Anything to do with editor HARRISONSST, this editor tries to get involved in any discussion just to try to block me or denigrate my name (without providing any proof). His concerns are obvious because as I have reported he is a WP:SPA editor (who just directly edits an article and dumps it in the most negative way possible [357],[358]), which the wikipedia community has mentioned.

“the wikipedia community will discover your real name” -- “but in the end the wikipedia community will discover your real name and your intentions on wikipedia!” Please don't just insert the text that suits you! But post my entire expression. The fact that you did not understand the meaning of my expression does not allow you to accuse me of any politics. I'm trying to explain in another format, everything I said was strictly related to what the community will finally understand what is the true face and role of that editor in wikipedia. I mention in no way I did not aim to violate what you presented WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING!

Now I want to make an explanation for the rest of the editors who will participate in this discussion. I am a COI editor hunter (and for every editor I provide evidence). Also every edit in wikipedia is in good faith (except that good faith ends where there are editors trying to dodge the truth). Possibly and I offended some bona fide editor at the Appin discussion (but I apologized and I mention none of them sought any further explanation, because we all sometimes get it wrong, only those who try to learn something sometimes get it wrong). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reread this message three times and I do not understand how most of this content is relevant to this discussion. This is not a misunderstanding. Whether or not you reported someone as a potential sockpuppet does not give you a license to threaten to out other people. And as 331dot has stated below, most of your reports contain woefully insufficient evidence of COI/sockpuppeting anyway. WP: AGF also has reasonable limits: editors may reasonably suspend an assumption of good faith if a user fails to comply with repeated warnings or engages in dangerous behavior, both of which have already happened. It is not an escape hatch to explain away blatant misbehavior.

Separately, this sort of attitude of "we all sometimes get it wrong" is not appropriate for issues of sockpuppeting and conflicts of interest, where sensitive information needs to change hands and users can be indefinitely blocked. These accusations are stressful for everyone involved and can severely tarnish the reputations of other users. This attitude is sensible in the context of content disputes, because edits in article space can be easily reverted. When it comes to disputes involving people, there is no magic "revert" button to undo the damage done to the reputations of other editors. What you've said here indicates to me that you're not willing to WP: LISTEN and take feedback from the community seriously. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Dmitry Bobriakov, no one appointed you to be a "hunter" and if you don't stop harrassing other editors you will face a block, likely of a long duration. This has been going on since you created your account, I had doubts then and they have never gone away. We don't need new and inexperienced editors to hunt down COIs, we need content creators and maintainers. Spend your time improving articles not investigating your fellow editors. I don't see any good that has come of your presence on this platform. Correct me if I'm wrong, 331dot and I'll strike my comment. But, frankly, the editors I have known who have devoted their time to chasing their suspicions about COI have usually ended up being blocked or leaving the platform. Find more productive ways to improve this encyclopedia that helps our readers and doesn't annoy your colleagues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say that's a fair assessment. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Liz, I will follow your recommendations and I hope that eventually your opinion towards me will change significantly. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm following this, but have time constraints at the moment; I can say (and anyone else with access to the COI VRT can look) that most of the time the information provided by D.B. is insufficent for me to take action. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel like I'm in any danger, but I was writing about a highly litigious company that used to steal information from people's computers and pass it to governments that could kidnap and torture them. The thing that I find bothersome is this person is accusing editors of being paid and posting notices on their user pages and the pages they've created—without any proof. This is nothing short of harassment. Then, there is this post from an editor who claims that he's running a scam on Wikipedia. HARRISONSST (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to get into the discussion. This person has sent two of my articles to AFD. And one of my articles has a COI tag over it. When will this stop? No one can accuse editors of conflict of interest. This is a very serious accusation! Did Dmitri decide to become the local sheriff? Give him a star and block him for a couple days so I can get my nerves in order Pollia (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would rather do something more useful, like learning how to create and edit wikipdata materials, than write words in my defense here. Pollia (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can make accusations when there is evidence. If I deserve it, I'll get a star for what I do. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a revenge backlash now. The article I painstakingly worked on for well over a month and took crap for is being messed up by someone who knows nothing about the subject. I decided not to write any more articles on Wikipedia, but it still sucks to see my article butchered and more nasty stuff posted on my talk page. HARRISONSST (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It isn't 'your' article, and you don't own anything on wikipedia. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I know it's not my article, but since I put so much effort into it, I hate to see it butchered. It's like any other thing you carefully build. This article is the raison d'être for users like DB, and your edit of the article is the kind of vandalism I'm talking about.

This guy just edited the article with an edit summary this should not be a direct quote lifted from an AP article, it should be written in plain encyclopedic language. The problem is, there are many sources for the article, it took me over a month to read all of them, but NONE of them are from AP. He didn't even bother to read anything. If you see the history of his talk page, he's done this before. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That appears to be a content dispute largely unrelated to the discussion here. Both of you, please take your concerns to the article’s talk page. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

That Dmitry Bobriakov be indefinitely TBAN'ed from AFD for multiple instances of casting aspersions and other incivil behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dmitry's statistics indicate that the pages that they have edited far more than any others are AFDs. Edits to articles in mainspace, at this point in time, do not exceed 4 for any given article. Added to that is their casting of aspersions and other incivil behaviour, in AFDs, as detailed in the diffs above. The editor needs more editing in mainspace, getting to know our policies and procedures before participating in what can sometimes be contentious discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I should mention that I understood the recommendations that were made, but in particular I did not edit the main space in order not to be blamed by other editors for having a COI to a particular article or in general to avoid any discussions about editing the main space (because from the beginning and until the creation of the wikipedia account I sent a string of messages to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, in which I was strictly analyzing the process of tagging editors by the admins, which made me learn many things). So, after a while, the admins got busier and busier, and it took a long time before my messages were processed (which is why I decided to create an account and deal directly with the tagging and notifying of editors (to which the admins only had to check the evidence). Also, please check the hit rate at AFD and all articles that were tagged (where most articles were contributed by editors who were involved in COI disputes or notified in the past by other editors). Thanks!--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  None of this is relevant. Per above, you are generating lots of reports that are not actionable. Your “strict analysis” is more or less bad-faith opposition research, and the fact that you continue to fixate on your “hit rate” when multiple people are calling for a TBAN is a very bad look for you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  For you it may not be relevant, but for administrators everything is relevant because they know more details and can solve this problem. Finally, thank you for all this attention and for voting in this discussion! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  If Liz had honored the need, we wouldn't have commented on this play a long time ago. Pollia (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  And a flirtatious tone with the administration isn't likely to help you. Have a good day Pollia (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your attention (I have mentioned it so far and will always mention it). I have common sense and discuss extremely nicely with editors who by their editing history show that they are bona fide editors!

  And such comments just make me pause and let the responsible editors solve this case! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Support: My rationale was given in the first message here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Please note that an editor with 100+ edits should not have the kind of knowledge of wikipedia policies that I need to google for. I'm sure he had/has other accounts and a lot of experience. Pollia (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe they spent too much time reading those policies 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but the point is that if you look at the history of this editor's edits, you can see that he has not contributed anything constructive. Only destruction. It's a Maleficent. Pollia (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

(I clearly indicated that I learned a lot from this process from special rights editors). And thanks for the mention, yes I read wikipedia policies more - than I edited articles with a potential COI. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

You should spend more time creating than witch-hunting. So far, everyone in this discussion doesn't seem to have the impression that you're doing any good. Pollia (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

And as far as I know, you don't have any special rights to insult other editors and threaten and violate wikipedia rules and policies. Have a good day. Pollia (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

These are not already your concerns (the attacks that are made by you, HyperAccelerated and HARRISONSST I try to overlook because I understand that at times I was not comfortable for you). In case you feel insulted, it shows that you still have something to hide from us (because otherwise you can overlook it without being so active). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

"it shows that you still have something to hide from us" You do realize that this is exactly the behavior you've been told several times to stop doing, right? Wrapping veiled accusations in meaningless niceties like "thank you for all this attention" is not what anyone is looking for here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Us?) Let us in on who you are?) Pollia (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think these are your last comments. Checkusers and administrators will settle this dispute without us. Good day to everyone here.Pollia (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Dmitry as they are very likely a sock or otherwise associated with UPE editing; see Special:Contributions/Metroick for example. Dmitry is likely a UPE themselves, following a "snitch type" model; these accounts often immediately begin accusing editors of COI/UPE. The accused editors maybe from rival firms/clients, or the accusations may be an attempt to make themselves look less suspicious. Those following the "snitch" model may also start AfDs based off of these accusations; this may range from image repair to stiffing clients to eliminating competition. No comment on anything else here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• This will be my last comment here. DB is not a new user. He knows his way around Wikipedia very well. As I've mentioned before, the thing I find unacceptable is harassing other users by putting notices on their user pages and the pages they have created for no reason. DB has been doing a lot of this. It really does not matter whether you have 100 edits or 100k. You have no right to harass people who are actually doing the work and giving you their free time. HARRISONSST (talk) 01:53, 25 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.

Flag changing IP(s)

Been longstanding problem - have forgotten original account that was blocked years ago....but IP back at it jumping back and forth on sub IPs.

• 49.175.171.71
• 49.175.171.54

. Moxy🍁 05:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy blocked the new IP for a month as well. I looked back in the history and it appears to just be those two; if they show up again elsewhere let me know and I'll block the /24. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much I was posting this here hoping someone would realize what account this should be attached to. Moxy🍁 17:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused, Elli, Moxy is not an admin and neither of these IP accounts are blocked. Did you mean another admin and a different IP account or range? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I meant that I blocked that IP, not that Moxy blocked it... and both of those IPs are blocked for a month currently. Unfortunately, no idea who this is. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Persistent NOTBROKEN/NOPIPE/GEOLINK violations by an IP hopper

An IP editor has been editing articles en masse to bypass redirects, in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE, or to add links in violation of MOS:GEOLINK. They receive a warning or two, hop to another IP in the range, and repeat. This has been going on for about a year. Here's a selection of talk pages:

• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D6C0:61F4:3673:674E:1055
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D6C0:1076:10AF:20A:3A6F
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D6C0:4195:2195:E6BA:AEF5
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D6C0:D71:84E9:9B57:ACAC
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D810:1D23:1B81:5921:B4AE
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D810:9C22:1315:8063:CCB0
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D810:91E5:8283:FEC4:1981
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D810:DF7:63D9:82A7:2F85
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B80:D810:E437:51F8:7ACE:242
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B81:B6D0:31F5:BCB1:80F8:22DB
• User talk:2607:FEA8:4B82:7B40:DC89:F6C9:FD3C:709C

Blocking the D6C0/64 and D810/64 ranges might be enough to stop this disruption. If not, a wider block of 4B80:D/52 or 4B80/48 wouldn't cause collateral damage, as far as I can tell. The majority of edits from 4B81/48 seem unrelated, and 4B82/48 hasn't been used for several months. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Shifting IP block-evasion and CIR issues

87.17.158.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is almost certainly the same as 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That IP was blocked, and this was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 2#February 2025 block of 79.13.24.38 by Johnuniq and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#Further reading links and maybe other places. I'm confident this editor has been using shifting IPs for months, if not longer.

There are WP:CIR issues. Before I noticed the longer history, I figured this was spam. It's not, but it's still disruptive and unhelpful. There is not enough time in the day for one editor (who only communicates in stilted English) to properly assess such a massive quantity of unrelated sources. When I asked on the IP's talk if they had read the sources they added, they said "I read all of them in Z-Library". (Z-Library is a shadow library for book file-sharing). The blocked IP had previously called themselves a librarian.[359] This editor has also added unreliable and predatory sources, as well. This block of edits from July 2024 is almost certainly the same editor, as just one example.

Following the IP's recent block it appears they created FutureBuilder14 (talk · contribs) to undo reverts and throw in some petty insults. The IP's most recent edits are to redo changes by FutureBuilder14 at Secularization. (Compare [360] to [361]). Light triad is another overlap.

Some of these sources are fine, I'm sure, but this editor doesn't know or apparently care which are useful and which are not. Maybe SPI would've been better, but it's complicated, involves IPs, and has been discussed other places, so here I am. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

GEO-Locate has them in basically the same location.

[362] and [363] Redacted II (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I had better not take action at the moment (not until the admin review linked above is closed). However, I will say that I am dissatisfied by the review because there is very little discussion about whether it is desirable for an IP (or anyone) to add dozens of external links, disguised as further reading. If that was really helpful, we could get a bot. There are lots of editors-on-a-mission at Wikipedia and it is clear that this IP is another with a hobby. They won't stop unless blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the review has been archived without being closed. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

LOL, thank you, I didn't notice the review link went to an archive! I'll wait a while to see if anyone here would object to the reported IP being blocked. @Ca: Do you want to express an opinion about these links? Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the editor is socking to this extent. It is understandable for the editor to be annoyed when all of their 160 edits, which I believe to have been made in good-faith, were reverted. However, creating socks to make edits and the editor's failure to discuss falls squarely in WP:BANREVERT territory. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing against the En WP admins

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.

---

זור987 canvassed here and here. The user wrote twice the same text:
"Can you help unblocking me in the English Wikipedia?
The troll User:Dorian Gray Wild caused my permanent blocking from the English Wikipedia some time ago and even blocking of my talk page there.
The troll spread lies about me and made false statements to the admins of the English Wikipedia, and thus made them believing his nonsense.
Can you help me with this? זור987 • Talk 16:26, 24 February 2025 (IST)"

זור987 asked דוד שי and Matanya, who was a steward, to be his meatpuppets in the En WP.

I would suggest that an En WP admin applies the SRG for LTA of זור987. Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 19:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Judging from his talk page,זור987 seems to have difficulty wrapping his head around the concept that the English and the Hebrew Wikipedias are separate entities. Ravenswing 19:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Dorian Gray Wild, what does SRG mean? I assume LTA stands for long-term abuse(r). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, SRG. _Dgw|Talk 20:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Remember we don't all speak TLA. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This was a one-way IBan but I'm wondering if this should be two-way. I thought an indefinite block and loss of talk page access for ור987 would end this feud but, unfortunately, Dorian Gray Wild, you are still keeping tabs on this editor. Now you are watching his edits on another project and bringing them to ANI even though you know we have no jurisdiction on the Hebrew Wikipedia.

What would it take for you to just ignore them and focus on productive activity on the English Wikipedia? Let them rant elsewhere, that has no effect on you here. And I don't see them canvassing against admins here, it's just their typical complaining that seems to have been going on for more than a year now. And I don't know much about SRGs but I think they would need to be blocked on several projects for that status to be considered. Please, move on and forget about this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It is wider than I initially wrote. I hope it may help the En WP admins: 1, 2, 3, 4. _Dgw|Talk 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The most recent of those diffs from the English Wikipedia is two years old. If you want to complain about behaviour on the Hebrew Wikipedia or Meta then do it there. Please take Liz's excellent advice and don't confuse projects. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, his user name was explicitly linked in both these comments, which would mean that he would see it even without following the other editor around, just like if I would add User:Liz to this comment. So the above does not mean that "DGW is still keeping tabs" but that the other editor is still annoying him. Yes, they should simply ignore it and accept that we can't nor won't do anything about hewiki, just like 987 has to accept that hewiki has no power here: but suggesting a 2-way ban seems way premature and based on incorrect presumptions. Fram (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point, Fram, I have struck my comment. I had thought that losing TPA would bring this to an end. However, I don't check my notifications regularly, I didn't realize that they would show a ping from another project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Fram for your useful words, and thank you Liz for making the lines.

Liz asked for other projects. The user requested deleting a file at Commons, and an article in the Simple WP, both were created by me. The article in Simple has been deleted. There is an additional article in Simple which I created. I am not Alex Fridman, nor a member of his family / his employee / a member of his organization (None of it).

May I guess that the user would focus on Simple after being declined in the He WP by דוד שי and Matanya? _Dgw|Talk 23:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps an editor who frequents ANI is an admin at Simple and can speak up on your behalf. I'll add to editors reviewing this case that I became more interested in this situation last year when I saw here, that זור987 sought at Meta to get Dorian Gray Wild globally blocked for really fabricated reasons, a request which was rightly declined. There is clearly harassment going on but we are limited in what we can do about it on this project. If anyone reviewing this has an "in" at the Hebrew Wikipedia, I'd encourage them to investigate but I have no contacts there and, honestly, I'm not sure admins at HEWiki would appreciate our playing interference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I agree with you that we have nothing to do with the He WP, and they would not like an intervention. If the Simple WP sees this issue, it will be great. I suggest to close it. Thank you for linking Meta, and thank you and the other participants for your words. _Dgw|Talk 02:58, 25 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.

After Dark (TV programme)

• After Dark (TV programme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was looking through this article at lunchtime. Like, Dispatches (TV programme), it's fondly remembered for its groundbreaking format and material, and if somebody could revive the pair of those for a 40th anniversary instead of Eastenders then I'd watch TV a bit more. However, I started to get bogged down in the excessive quotations in the article, which was just too much for a casual read. I then discovered that the principal author, AnOpenMedium openly asserts to be an employee of the production company Open Media, with their own dedicated website. The website seems to be a scrape of our article without an appropriate licence, which is a potential copyright issue, and links back to old revisions of the article (such as this) which contain excessive quotations to the point they could potentially be considered copyright violations. I'd quite like to read the full details of the altercation between Oliver Reed and Kate Millett ... just on another website.

For now, I've trimmed the article back to a previous attempt at cleanup by Hippo43, which was mostly reverted by HarpuaTheBulldog and left a note on the talk page. However, it seems the problems with excessive quotes have gone back several years, so I think the issue needs to be flagged up so other admins can see if there's a problem.

It looks like everybody has perfectly civil and polite when discussing issues, and is trying to do the right thing. It's definitely, not civil POV pushing, it seems more like a lack of full understanding of the nuances of what Wikipedia's really about. So I think lectures and blocks are definitely not the right cause of action. I'm wondering what is? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The best one was that one with Keith Allen, where he was pissed drunk and caned on Charlie and basically told everyone to fuck off, several times. That needs to be added to the article tout suite. Cheers Ritchie333. @Martinevans123:, what say you? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That was The Late Show. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: What do you mean by "pissed"? If you are British you probably mean drunk, but if you are American you probably mean annoyed; I don't know which you mean. JBW (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks JBW, fair point, and i've clarified. As it happens he was not only drunk but got increasingly—and bizarrely!—angry, so both definitions probably apply  :) here it is. absolutely cringeworthy! And thanks Ritchie333 for the info. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

As I remember it, Olly was both pissed and drunk, although not necessary in that order. But it was on way past my bedtime, so may have mixed him up with Germaine Greer or someone. Not sure I'm the best person to ask about potential copyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll resist the temptation to reminisce. I note that the OpenMedia link still has "© Open Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. It should not, and that should be replaced by an accurate copyright notice. I don't think that I have any standing to contest the copyright notice. That should be done by someone who has contributed to the article to a copyrightable extent. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, HarpuaTheBulldog here. This article has been one of my very favorites on Wikipedia for many years. I really am a big fan of the show; and the depth and cultural critiques listed in the article provided paint a detailed landscape of how the show impacted pop culture. I have learned so much from both the parts that I have added and the parts that others have added. To wake up and see that I was mentioned in an active admin investigations was interesting and a bit eye-opening, LOL. I cannot speak on copyright - I know next to nothing about it. I have no relationship with the user in question (who, to be perfectly fair on both sides - has previously listed their biases). I want to be the lonely advocate for the restoration of this page. I do not believe that it has too many quotations nor do I believe it needs to be pared down so significantly that it takes away basically everything that made the article so engaging. If this article was ever article of the day or won some kind of editing award, I would have certainly believed it. Anyways, definitely willing to work with folks here to perhaps make some kind of compromise? Not trying to be in bad faith, certainly. Cheers! HarpuaTheBulldog (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

"If this article was ever article of the day or won some kind of editing award, I would have certainly believed it." We have such a thing - Featured article candidates, but it would have failed a review because of excessive close paraphrasing. Wikipedia needs to summarise what the source material says, rather than repeat it verbatim - the article is designed for a wide audience ranging from people who enjoyed watching After Dark in its heyday through to people who've never heard of it and want to find a neutral account of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion continued on the Talk page of After Dark (TV programme) ----- AnOpenMedium (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Repeated "Gulf of America" vandalism on certain spaceflight pages

In several articles, particularly Starship flight test 8 and SpaceX Starbase, there are several IP's that are changing mentions of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America". The community has already reached a consensus about which name is appropriate, yet these users won't stop. This has happened numerous times. I have asked them to stop on their talk pages. They don't respond. I have also posted a vandalism notice in the article's talk page itself, and the issues continue. I would post a report on the WP:AIV page, but this is happening with multiple users. Also, once we report a user, it seems that, while that user stops vandalizing, another user continues in their footsteps, creating this endless cycle of reverting and undoing that gets in the way of actually useful edits. None of these vandals have an actual account, and none of these vandals have made a single edit other than the name-changing. It's a huge inconvenience for actual editors, and there is nothing that prevents it from happening repeatedly in the near future. Is there something that could be done to fix this problem and give it a more long-term solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadien1867 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

If the vandalism is great enough from unregistered or new editors, and there are few constructive edits from them, then semi-protection can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Slight correction: IIRC one vandal had an account, but it had only made 5 edits ever, and the last edit before vandalism (which may very well also have been vandalism).

Also, SpaceX Starbase is already protected. Redacted II (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

There exists an edit filter(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/1338), although there is no action attached to it at the moment. Maybe request QoH to attach a disallow action to it? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Resume of previously reported behaviour

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.

---

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

Following this report and return to the same talk page discussion, user has resumed the same pattern of disruptive behaviour they exhibited prior, while also exerting WP:OWN behaviour. User is also exhibiting personal attacks in their edits, in addition to inappropriate edit summaries. User is clearly not here to edit constructively on the encyclopedia, despite ongoing discussions on the talk page, in attempts to try and gain some kind of consensus, despite repeated failed attempts across multiple days.

• 1277673197 (WP:DONTGETIT/WP:NOTHERE)
• 1277673441 (WP:PERSONAL)
• 1277672840 (WP:OWN; inappropriate edit summary)
• 1277673441 (complete talk page blanking; more WP:PERSONAL attacks)
• 1277674883 (removal of valid content for unsourced content; WP:STONEWALL)

Surely these three edits alone are showcasing this user is not here for the right reasons. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:24, 26 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.

Disruptive editing on the Tiffany Pollard article

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.

---

During the month of February on the WP:BLP article Tiffany Pollard, there has been disruptive editing by Mars2052. On the talk page of Tiffany Pollard, under the sub-heading "Rampant fan-site copy" and on the talk page of Mars2052, the editor Escape Orbit and myself have requested that the neutrality tag on the page is not removed until there's a consensus that the neutrality concerns have been addressed. Mars2052 has persistently added non-neutral peacock-style / puffery / inflated POV opinions on the article.

Mars2052 has reverted attempts to make the language more neutral, has reverted the tidying up of references and persistently removed the neutrality tag while the issues are ongoing. On the talk page of the Tiffany Pollard article, Mars2052 has said, "I will no longer be responding you're wasting your time" and has continued after that to still remove the neutrality tag.

Diffs of some disruptive edits below where the neutrality tag has been removed by Mars2052. Please see the Revision history of the Tiffany Pollard article for further examples of persistent disruptive editing including reverting attempts to make the language more neutral and reverting the tidying of references.

1. [364]

2. [365]

3. [366]

4. [367]

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Mars2052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a WP:SPA. Since joining in 2023, out of 906 edits, 827 have been to Tiffany Pollard. And their comments on the talk page, like this one, aren't encouraging either. If they continue with their disruptive behavior, perhaps a pblock might be in order. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a possible solution, but I don't get why pblocks are used for SPAs rather than total blocks. The person doesn't suddenly change just because they edit a different article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I thoroughly suspect (and I bet most of you do, too) that there is a conflict of interest involved in the editing. On-wiki evidence shows that Mars2025 is interested in a mall relatively close to the subject's birthplace, whose birthplace is listed in the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 24 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 87.18.95.16

87.18.95.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and continued after final warning. IP was blocked for 31h on February 16, and behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems that the IP violates under WP:RS and WP:BURDEN guidelines. That's why, the IP continued to disrupt the three articles without looking a notable sources as I observed this. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

IP Block

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.

---

50.204.251.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seems like on and off vandalism for some years now, usually once or twice a year. Can this IP be blocked, please? He's plain disruptive. Rexophile (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It's an IP with the most common and rote vandalism you can think of and this didn't even need to come here; the IP was warned the day before and stopped. It's a school IP as noted on the talk page, and three vandal edits in a full year shows that basic warning works. Nathannah • 📮 02:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just thought it would be good to know of what he's doing. Rexophile (talk) 02:21, 26 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:Eric Carpenter

Eric Carpenter (talk · contribs · count)

This user is doing some good work, however I've warned them a number of times here and twic here for the same issue. I don't like bringing stuff here but, just need someone to assess the issues. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This user FlightTime has been harassing me endlessly of late, threatening me with being banned when they are not an administrator. They have falsely and repeatedly accused me of vandalism, which I was NOT doing, I was editing and adding more reliable sources. This user just doesn't understand that if simply don't like someone's edits it does not make it vandalism. If anyone can assist with this please do, thanks. Eric Carpenter (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally messed up your talk page, however the issue still stands. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Eric Carpenter Please do not C/P a users signature anywhere. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The last warning I gave this user (That I totally messed up trying to fix) was meant to be a final warning for WP:NOTBROKEN which is here. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Eric Carpenter, those messages are not harassment. You've been receiving various warnings, from various editors, because of problems with your editing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, FlightTime, for some reason, you provided diffs of your warnings to the editor but not diffs of the edits you are finding problematic BY the editor. Don't make editors reviewing this complaint comb through their contributions searching for what you are concerned with. You need to lay out your argument with evidence that supports your claims, not just allude to problems that might exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Liz: that is the Kevin Costner NOTBROKEN revert I warned Carpenter for. Here it is again Special:Diff/1277658410. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

User in violation of WP:CC, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR

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.

---

This is the talk page where you can see all the discussions here: Talk:Harla people#Relationship of the Harla to the Walasma and Their Origins and the two topics below.

The editor has repeatedly attacked me personally (WP:CC) and reverts any and all edits made for no valid reason. All cited sources are dismissed point-blank. They refuse to adjust even when they have been shown that their own sources contradict the claims they made within the same text. On other occasions, they have literally made a statement in the article that the cited source does not support whatsoever and on prompting made a WP:IJUSTLIKEIT answer or selectively use a source discarding later parts of the same source that contradict the view they insist on irregardless of objective evidence presented (WP:RS) (WP:NOR). As a result, the article does not reflect the current academic view of this topic.

The editor appears to have a certain bias set in stone and is not interesting in any edits to the article based on further academic sources that may present a more nuanced picture. I do not see any other reason why cited sources, many of them by the same authors would be rejected on the occasion they appear to not favour their preferred argument.

Discussion has been impossible. The editor has devoted their time namely to attacking me, accusing me of things I didn't do and attacking the validity of the sources.

It has been impossible to try to reach consensus.

I would appreciate any assistance.

Abcsomwiz (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcsomwiz (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC) 

Courtesy link: Talk:Harla_people#Relationship_of_the_Harla_to_the_Walasma_and_Their_Origins "The editor" appears to be Magherbin, based on OP's ANI notification. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Schazjmd. I read this whole complaint not knowing who this editor was that they were talking about.

Abcsomwiz, can you please supply diffs of this disruption you are upset about? You need to provide evidence to support your claims and you didn't even provide a link to the page you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your time and having a look at my complaint. Please also accept my apologies. I have not done this process before and thought I'd included the links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harla_people&diff=prev&oldid=1276746716

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harla_people&diff=prev&oldid=1276702281

The first concerns an edit I made to better reflect the academic sources as there is no agreement or even a source stating what the original sentence does and the source they provided as evidence does not support the claim made.

Likewise for the second one, the sentence and the sourced cited for it do not quite match.

There are not too many diffs in relation to the article body because after this initial problem, I opted to try and discuss in the talk page instead of potentially starting an edit war.

Talk:Harla people#Relationship of the Harla to the Walasma and Their Origins

This is the initial post I made to initiate the discussion and contains info relevant to the first diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harla_people&diff=prev&oldid=1276834132

Disagreement is ok and to be expected, but I have had to deal with a total lack of cooperation, a very dismissive and demeaning attitude and no way forward as they've indicated they will just revert all changes and appear to have no interest in working to a mutually agreed change.

In terms of the historical details being disputed, they are a lot of them and I am conscious of the need to make this as efficient as possible. How do you suggest I present the full scope of disagreements, contradictions, omissions, selective use of sources, rejection of perfectly valid academic sources, etc? I had also made a topic on the topic that is a list of 13 questions relating to what I feel the article is currently missing:

Talk:Harla people#List of questions to be considered for the RfC regarding Harla identity

For now, I will just point to some examples of the disagreeable conduct displayed:

They made personal attacks such as implying that I am a certain blogger and that I have used blogs instead of reliable academic research and implying bad-faith in seeking to edit the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harla_people&diff=prev&oldid=1277615897 Abcsomwiz (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not breach any of the policies you mentioned. Furthermore, asserting that the sources provided are unreliable does not constitute a personal attack. As a blogger myself, I do not view inquiring whether someone else operates a blog as an insult. I have consistently requested that you submit the texts you are suggesting for inclusion in the article; however, you have declined to do so. Also i'm not the IP address provided in one of your diffs Magherbin (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left aside the blog stuff.

I have placed in the discussion several times what I was intending to add. I did not decline- we could not agree on a single thing.

I will check the diff thing maybe I made a mistake Abcsomwiz (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Editors disagree all day long on Wikipedia. It's part of being a collaborative editing project. But you haven't demonstrated any evidence that Magherbin has violated any conduct guidelines. Without evidence, this complaint will likely be closed later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That's fine you can close it. I will work more on familiarising myself with the conventions.

Thank you for your feedback I acknowledge I was off here. Abcsomwiz (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Abcsomwiz (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abcsomwiz, you're making a complaint about another editor's conduct. You need to provide diffs (links to the edits that editor made) that demonstrate the problems. The one diff that you provide above doesn't support your claim; a civil question is not a personal attack. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 26 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.

Mauricio Carrillo Sánchez

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.

---

New user Mauricio Carrillo Sánchez making rapid edits spamming one YouTube link. --Trovatore (talk) 05:27, 26 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.

bbb23

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.

---

reverting edits to Heartstopper (TV Series) Wikipedia page and giving unconstructive, bordering on rude feedback. Have reported multiple times Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate post:

• BBB23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverting edits to Heartstopper (TV Series) Wikipedia page and giving unconstructive, bordering on rude feedback. Have reported multiple times.Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Lovefromjuliaxo,

As stated in multiple places here, you need to notify an editor you mention at ANI with a notification on their talk page. Also, you haven't provided any "diffs"/edits that support your claims. No action will be taken without evidence that what you claim is happening. And we generally encourage editors to try to talk out their differences before coming to ANI. Have you tried discussing this with Bbb23? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies new to Wikipedia. Yes, I have on their talk page Unfortunately they ignored me. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I also think that tagging an longtime administrator as a "vandal" will only cause you headaches. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk page is here topics are Heartstopper

Just because someone is a long term administrator does not mean they can get away with nasty unconstructive feedback and reverting for no reason. I have tried to discuss it amicably and have been ignored when asked how to improve. Their last feedback on my talk page was appalling. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The username is bbb23 no capitals Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Appalling is right. @Lovefromjuliaxo, if you're willing to take advice from people who don't call you disruptive and incompetent, may I suggest avoiding writing plot summaries and using videos as sources for a while? It looks to me like a lot of these conflicts are over how you're explaining what you're seeing in various videos. It would probably be helpful for you to get more editing experience working from text sources first. -- asilvering (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that one of Bbb23's most recent messages was calling Lovefromjuliaxo incompetent and threatening to take them to ANI, I can see why they thought this was the next step. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Lovefromjuliaxo added content to the article, which was reverted by Bbb with the edit summary too much detail, often poorly worded, various othrographic errors. Julia posted twice on article talk, didn't get a response, and then edited the article again. Those edits were reverted by Bbb with the edit summary you have no consensus for these changes, and some of them are downright incomprehensible, and others have new errors.

I'm not sure what about the edits were downright incomprehensible – they seem pretty coherent to me – but I can't speak to any potential errors in summarizing the plot of the show. @Lovefromjuliaxo, in the future, if you want someone to respond to you on article talk, you should either ping them or leave a note on their talk page pointing them to the conversation. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou, yes I have left a note on their talk page now. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to notify Bbb of this discussion in particular. You still haven't done that. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have done it now Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I also left two notes on their talk page a few days ago both of which were ignored Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Bbb23 responded to you extensively on his talk page: Special:PermanentLink/1277687795#Heartstopper. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This was after the first reversion and before the second. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I edited carefully the second time and took all their points into consideration, you will see from my lengthy reply to it. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

They chose to not respond to my reply. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's late for me and I want to go to bed, so I'll be quick. First, I did not "ignore" Julia. Quite the opposite. After I reverted her first changes to the article, she asked me on my Talk page what was wrong with her edits, and, as you can see on my Talk page, I took a lot of trouble to detail most of what was wrong and why. After that, she posted and said she was going to "forward it to Wikipedia to make a decision", which, in hindsight, I believe meant she was going to take it to the article Talk page, which she did. I didn't respond there because I had nothing new to say and because she was somewhat nasty about the whole thing, including creating a second, unnecessary section where she called me Bbb26. She didn't get a response from any other editors about her changes, which is partly why I reverted her changes with the comment "no consensus" but also because she introduced new problems, including capitalization errors, poor wording (again), and my "incomprehensible" comment referred to one of her changes where she replaced "Imogen breaks up with Ben after he ignores her and obsesses about Charlie" with "Imogen breaks up with Ben after he Jesus Guerrero her and obsesses about Charlie". What on earth is that about? The hair stylist who recently died? No clue. Finally, she's not that new an editor. She's been here almost a year and has a huge number of warnings on her Talk page, as well as a recent block. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Jesus Guerrero - this was a typo and I would’ve been more than happy for this to be removed.

  You replied in detail a few days ago, I replied to you twice and you did not respond to me. I tried to take your suggestions into consideration however as you did not respond I revised my text.

  your second response was unhelpful Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  > can see on my Talk page, I took a lot of trouble to detail most of what was wrong and why

  i then responded to ask for suggestions and you ignored me. A lot of your advice was also wrong. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Although Julia has been here almost a year, she's still not EC, which in my book, still makes her a new editor. Although she's not brand new, she hasn't been around enough for me to expect her to understand how to do everything correctly. I would, however, expect someone who's been an administrator for 13 years to be able to de-escalate conflict--not to be bothered by someone misspelling their username (most likely on accident). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to echo SL here. @Bbb23, in the future, could you maybe consider not insulting the newbie editors? You have a bit of a pattern of calling them incompetent. You've made it into a bit of a habit over the last few years:

  • 2024-11-30“voorts, every word the user writes demonstrates incompetence”
  • 2024-08-25 “Apparently, you are incompetent at following instructions at noticeboards”
  • 2023-12-17...I blocked you, per WP:G3 (vandalism). I suspect it was more incompetence than vandalism, but I really don't see why you should be unblocked.
  • 2022-08-16 "The user is at best incompetent"
  • 2022-07-04 If you persist, you risk being blocked for incompetence
  • 2021-11-09 “I have blocked you for two weeks for disruptive edits and for incompetence.”
  • 2021-08-06 " ...the user is clearly incompetent."
  • 2021-07-09 "...you are a mixture of incompetence [...] and battle-ground mentality"
  • 2020-02-02“Did you also notice that he used opening curly quotes at the end of quotations? Is it intentional disruption? If it isn't, then it's incompetence”
  • 2020-01-05 "...your disruption is grounded in incompetence"

  which, given that calling people "incompetent" is listed as a personal attack in the WP:CIR essay, feels like it's only going to lead to more unpleasantness. Liz made a good point above about talking through issues rather than immediately escalating them to dramaboards or sanctions; I think that's advice a couple people should take to heart here. Everybody makes mistakes and misunderstands policy, especially when they're new, inexperienced, or are working in their second language. Insulting them for perceived deficiencies isn't very kind, and just escalate things in a way I'd imagine you don't feel comfortable with either. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would feel horrible reading someone describe me as incompetent. At the same time, "could you maybe consider not insulting the newbie editors" reads as very condescending and it implies Bbb23 knows they're being insulting and they are doing it anyway. Perhaps they are using "incompetence" as jargon, just as someone may tell someone writing an autobiography "you are not notable" and not consider that a normal person would hear that as "you are not worthy of attention or important". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was absolutely not intending to be condescending, thank you for letting me know that it could come across that way. If it is an older dialect of wikijargon that would explain a lot; I think we can all agree that it needs to stop, however. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I did my best asking for feedback and waited 3 days for secondary feedback from them but got no response at all, hence my second edit. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no point talking to bbb23 about this, they have now banned me entirely from Heartstopper page and will likely be allowed to go on being rude. I followed all the rules on the page of asking for feedback twice and waiting before redoing the page, and they ignored me the second time. Other feedback of theirs has been rude and disrespectful. However as they are more experienced they will always “win out” on here. It has put me off the community unfortunately. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

After I reverted her first changes to the article, she asked me on my Talk page what was wrong with her edits, and, as you can see on my Talk page, I took a lot of trouble to detail most of what was wrong and why. After that, she posted and said she was going to "forward it to Wikipedia to make a decision",

you have very cleverly left out how I approached you a second time to ask how to make the article better. I waited 3 days, you did not responde, hence i re edited. Nowhere was i rude to you. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Reopened per a request from an experienced editor whose opinion I admire. I have retained the p-block (per my original close: I have p-blocked the reporting editor from Heartstopper (TV series) . Closing this before a boomerang lands in a site block, which is the only place this is going. Longer note on Talk. ) as they do not seem to get it, but no objection to that being lifted should consensus emerge it was wrong. My read as an uninvolved admin is they are being disruptive and not listening to feedback Star Mississippi 04:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  And this is what happens. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  As i said, i asked for feedback a second time round and was completely ignored by them. They were there- as they were replying to others on their talk page. I also waited a while (3 days) before redoing my edits taking their first points into considerations as i knew I was not going to get a reply. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but here, [368] you accused Bbb23 of contacting you on your private social media about this issue. You can't just leave something like that hanging out there without substantiation or clarification; either evidence should be provided or that statement should get stricken. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Where can I upload screenshot? Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If you think Bbb23 is harassing you off wiki, you need to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org with hard evidence. Be advised that complaints without solid evidence and without foundation are likely to get action taken against you instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Tardy to the party, but I have no problem with anything Bbb23 has said or done here. This article is bloated with WP:SYNTH and overdetail that largely belongs on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. There’s a remarkable lack of attention to detail in proofreading, including capitalization of random words for no apparent reason. It is important to take responsibility for making your written work as correct and understandable as possible on this respected worldwide platform.

There’s a lack of recognition of a fundamental principle of writing about a narrative work: one must assume the reader has never read or seen the subject work and shouldn’t be required to winkle out which pronouns refer to which character in situations with, for example, multiple “he”s.

And there is far too much beat-by-beat detail; Wikipedia isn’t the place for painstaking episode recaps. If you disagree, a fan site might be a better platform for you than this global encyclopedia. Our goal here is to enlighten our readers, not to fixate on memorialization of arcane detail—the audience I keep in my head is “people who never heard of the show until earlier tonight when some dude at the bar was loudly going on and on about how much he liked it and it actually sounded like it might be cool”. If they were already fans, they’d go to a fansite. If they’re coming to Wikipedia, they want a solid, referenced, well-copyedited overview of what the show is about, when it was on, who was in it, whether it won any awards, and what generally happened in individual episodes in 100 words or fewer.

I’ve been a writer and editor in some capacity for almost 40 years. I try to be efficient and to communicate the extent to which revisions are necessary in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the problem. Sometimes this comes off to newer and/or younger writers as abrasive. I don’t intend that! But part of professional growth involves learning that bluntness doesn’t equate with unfriendliness.

Please engage in a painstaking review of your work in light of my comments (and Bbb23’s; he is an excellent editor from whom I’ve learned a lot myself) and wait 24 hours before you react. We’re not on a deadline here and haste makes waste. It’s past 3:30 a.m. in my time zone and I’ve spent well over an hour writing this and I need to be at the office in 3 hours. If you think I’m being disrespectful to you, that’s concerning to me, but it isn’t my intent or a reasonable conclusion. I won’t respond for at least 24 hours (probably more like 36) and I don’t think anyone will disagree that this is a reasonable Wiki-boundary. I wish you the best. Julietdeltalima (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am just going to leave it I can no longer edit the page. If this whole discussion could be closed I’d appreciate it thanks Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Just had another read of this. I am interested that the full article even before my edits has content that is not allowed on Wikipedia. It was similar content that is already on the article that led me to believe that my contribution would be helpful. The article perhaps needs a whole overhaul in this case by someone who can remove everything that isn’t suitable for it. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lovefromjuliaxo, Wikipedia is a work in progress everywhere. There is loads of content that does not meet our guidelines. If you're ever unsure, you can ask questions about editing at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thankyou. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

[369] This response is full of aspersions. Julia, you've been given feedback by multiple experienced editors, and you refuse to listen to it. See WP:IDHT. At this point you appear to be WP:NOTHERE.

Codename AD ^talk 11:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

New employee shows up at work, does something dumb. Boss walks in, calls them incompetent, not here for the company, and not someone who can ever learn. Acceptable to you? If not, why is it different here? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts because this isn't a new employee who did something dumb once, they've been repeating the same errors across different articles since they started using this account and have received numerous final warnings (cc @Binksternet). They'd have been let go following a probation period. We obviously don't do that here, but something has to change. Star Mississippi 12:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with SL that someone with less than 500 edits is still new, but even if Julia isn't new, would you say any of those things to a probationary employee while firing them? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I personally wouldn't, but I would try to focus their editing work to limit damage to colleagues' work while they improved what they were able to do well.

Separate to whether Bbb23's phrasing was ideal or not, Julia really needs to hear and listen to feedback. If I'd seen it at the time, I didn’t realise it was me evading it, there are several people at this IP. is block worthy enough and the continued wikilawyering is an issue regardless of how they have been spoken to. Star Mississippi 13:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Could this whole thing be closed now so people can no longer reply if possible Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I have been reverting a bunch of Lovefromjuliaxo's changes because so many of them are written for the purpose of filling in the gaps. Her strategy includes adding unimportant detail, using her own experience to flesh out a narrative, and synthesizing different sources to come up with a new conclusion. Lovefromjuliaxo adds excessive detail in an unencyclopedic manner, and she uses poor sourcing such as gossip websites and primary sources. Over and over at S Club 8 she kept restoring unreferenced and poorly referenced information about Connor Daley who was in the group for just a few days, so he is unimportant to the group's story. I have been explaining Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to Lovefromjuliaxo since September 2024, and she seems to be getting the message, albeit very slowly. She has edited logged-out with Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:600:1E01:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:6AB:1D01:0:0:0:0/64, and yesterday she evaded her block with Special:Contributions/86.187.229.206, which is a serious infraction. I have no problem with any of Bbb32's actions. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The edit by 86.187.229.206 was made on February 22, not yesterday, and was an evasion of Julia's first block imposed by Ad Orientem.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

she seems to be getting the message, albeit very slowly

do you have to be so rude? Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate if this whole thing could be closed now cheers Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Can this discussion now be closed Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it can not. You started this thread, and now it falls to the admin corps to decide when and how to close it. Evidently, people still have more to say about your contributions (or lack there of), and it appears that the consensus emerging here is that action of some sort needs to be taken. There is presently no particular consensus for what that action might look like (though I note that Star Mississippi has leveled a corrective action), but the community looks to be at the point where they determine that more than prepared statements of warning should be issued. Remember, any time you open a thread on the boards you invite scrutiny of the issues at hand, the editors in questions, and yourself, and if you are unable or unwilling to deal with that then you need to post you grievances- if they may be called such - elsewhere. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:E40F:5B1F:CFAD:6557 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not know admins had to make a decision and close it, I thought anyone could. I am more than happy to wait. Thankyou. Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

My point was people who make good actions at the end like the character mentioned doesn’t mean their nastiness can be explained away. I found the whole hp thing a bit patronising, accept that whoever wrote it probably didn’t intend on it coming across that way.

I think as nobody here can agree, there’s people on one side and people on another, the whole thing should just be closed. Even if that means my ban on the HS page stays.

I have uploaded evidence to the email given

Thankyou Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 14:32, 26 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:Mylifemyhobby

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.

---

• Mylifemyhobby (talk · contribs)

The user is an extremely obvious sock of Mylifeinvn123 (talk · contribs), which was previously blocked per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1178#User:Mylifeinvn123 less than one month ago, and now doing exactly the same disruptive edits as before.

NONE of the concerns at User talk:Mylifeinvn123#International goals sections - last warning have been addressed at this new account, so the user is still either ignorant on purpose, or just way too incompetent with no English speaking ability. Maybe a temporary IP range block for specific topic, so their range won't be able to edit articles marked with WikiProject football for some time if this could be implemented? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty evident that Mylifemyhobby has somewhat similar editing behavior to those of Mylifeinvn123, especially since the latter's account was partially blocked from editing certain articles. Given the fact that both accounts are editing with similar methods purely states clear that there is somewhat of a high volume of disruptive editing and not willing to communicate or be competent by any means. Adding up to this, there is sufficient grounds that both accounts could be indefinitely blocked when a checkuser responds and investigates this matter. The VGP (talk) 17:41, 26 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.

Albert101032

Albert101032 (talk · contribs) - 2 previous blocks for adding unsourced content to BLPs, but continuing despite recent warnings. We need a longer block. GiantSnowman 19:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

POV pushing and now saving their 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.

---

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

I'm honestly surprised no one has brought this user to ANI yet. The amount of POV pushing he's done is startling. The page he's authored & heavily contributed to -- Execution of Sambhaji -- which recently sparked controversy along with the Sambhaji page, looks like it was almost entirely written by an AI [370] and gives only a probability of 25% human written (To be more specific this old revision contains probability of 14% human generated contents). It's seriously worrying that such a sensitive, highly contentious topic might be written by a LLM instead of an editor. While I do feel for him, considering the legal trouble he's facing (if he's really) with the Maharashtra government, but that doesn't excuse the recklessness he's done. Just reverting [371] [372] the controversial edits won't help in covering his back, and when I actually looked at his edits, the NPOV issues were impossible to ignore:

1. 05:35, 18 February 2025: The 'Convicted' parameter in infobox of Execution of Sambhaji is filled as: Rape, torture and robbery during Sacking of Burhanpur (1681) even though there's no mentions of such official orders & conviction in the source. Clearly a case of WP:OR additions & POV pushing. Also I find no instance for Sambhaji getting charged for Wars with the Mughal empire either, a case of blatant original research I should say. If any it should have been presented with -- A panel of ulema sentenced him to death for having slain and captured good Muslims. as per the same source, but instead of presenting factual info, the user in question continues to add(s), challenge the removal of unverified, OR & PoV additions and on top of that calls other good faith editors for their constructive edits as "The white washing POV editors are really a trouble" huh the irony.
2. Another user rightly removed their unsourced claim [373] but as usually, Imperial reverted [374][375] their constructive removal without actually going through the source, as what it really says. Later on they won a one sided victory [376] in this edit war not by discussion but through asking for the page protection [377], the another user is by default unable to contest their reverts.
3. 05:35, 18 February 2025: This viewpoint addition has been refuted by many sources, but instead of dealing with NPOV issues, the user is owning the article and keeps reverting new comers without actually going through the problem and presenting the views of other side, clearly a biased case. One of a research paper is solely based on rebutting the whole narrative:

• Pawar, Dr. Manjushri (July 2015). "Defamation of Chhatrapati Sambhaji in Marathi Literature" (PDF). Vishwawarana National Research Journal. II (2): 27–33.

Malhar Ramrao Chitnis, a hereditary servant of Satara Chhatrapati, wrote his Bakbar in 1811. While narrating the account of Sambhaji’s activities, Chitnis has not only followed the prejudices and charges of Sabhasad but also added some fictitious stories to Sambhaji’s life. One of such stories is that Sambhaji raped beautiful Brahmin lady who had come to the Palace at Raigad for some religious function. In fact Sambhaji was in South Konkan and not at Raigad when this episode is said to have taken palace.

I'm not surprised if the Government of Maharashtra is fuming over this biased and POV-ridden article on this monarch, authored by Imperial, which was likely produced by an LLM. One should really think about it that: perhaps it's the users in the favour of these pov- additions who're on the other side of the fence, not the government or the newbie editors reverting their PoV-ish additions. A topic ban is necessary to resolve this situation, which is currently and repeatedly arising. If not from IPA, then a topic ban from Maratha Confederacy and Sambhaji would suffice. Heraklios 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems like there's ongoing discussion on the relevant talk page regarding what the level of support exists for various claims, particularly at Talk:Execution_of_Sambhaji#Convictions. The current state of discussion there does not seem to clearly square with the narrative of the dispute that you are presenting here. The Pawar 2015 source mentioned here doesn't seem to have been discussed yet at all. It seems like there are still content dispute questions to be resolved here before it becomes clear that behavioral issues require sanctions. No comment on the AI concern at this time, that is a separate issue, although I did examine the edit history for signs of obvious AI use (or not); the edit history does not make it immediately obvious whether or not AI was used. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll be clarifying the recent blatant misinterpretation and pov additions done on the article at Talk:Execution_of_Sambhaji#Convictions. However, the issues regarding the concerned user should be given due attention. Heraklios 15:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems constructive--but I'll note that your core assertion of problematic behavior by ImperialAficionado here is that they're reverting changes to preserve content not supported by sources, but on the talk page there is discussion suggesting that it is supported by at least some sources. Whether or not it's WP:DUE or properly presented is yet to be determined, but editors seem to assert that the work by John F. Richards supports these claims. Maybe Richards is an authoritative source, maybe it isn't, maybe we shouldn't be using it, but until that matter is settled, it seems like ImperialAficionado is procedurally correct to revert edits like Special:Diff/1271324576 which edit war to remove content without justification. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, would you consider closing this ANI thread and referring the involved editors to AE, given that this is IPA-related? Some context for that suggestion at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 16#Comment. One of the same editors is involved across both threads. I'm a 3O in a related talk page discussion so I'd rather not do this myself. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Aren't you supposed to use the talk page for disputing the said information? The fact that you are relying on a source from Vishwawarana National Research Journal, your report is lacking any strong basis. Dympies (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I did it now. But I don't get your "lacking any strong basis" part. If you think that the reliability of the journal is questionable then refer to WP:RSN. Heraklios 16:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  It would probably make more sense to discuss it first at Talk:Execution of Sambhaji and only bringing it to RSN if editors at the article can’t come to a consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Rosguill, I would be more than willing to start a discussion using the source mentioned above, as I'm already involved in the Execution of Sambhaji article (see discussion). I too think the article has some "NPOV issues". AlvaKedak (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually I think, the content there is unwarranted so it seems starting a discussion at Talk:Sambhaji is more feasible as it is the parent article. AlvaKedak (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with HerakliosJulianus. Almost all of the articles created by ImperialAficionado are highly likely AI-generated, as indicated by multiple GPTZero results: [378], [379], [380], [381], [382]. This makes it quite clear that the user has been relying on LLMs to generate content, so concerns about AI use are well-founded. Regarding the other issues, like restoring unsourced additions or persistent POV-pushing, it's evident the user has serious WP:IDHT tendencies. Considering all of the above, I'm inclined to support an IPA topic ban rather than alternative measures. Mr.Hanes Talk 18:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  In general, an analysis of edit content and timing is more informative than GPTZero results. With that in mind, Chanda Sahib invasion of Travancore pretty clearly was not created by an AI, although the others listed here could potentially be AI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  To me, if GPTZero gives a high probability score above 60%, it's pretty clear that the content is AI-generated. Even a result above 50% should be enough to consider a text (of more than 100 words) to be AI-generated. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, algorithms like GPTZero are extremely opaque and unreliable, especially for Wikipedia article text because to a great extent, popular LLMs are trained to imitate Wikipedia and thus anything that looks like a well-written article tends to get flagged. It's slightly more useful for identifying problems with talkpage comments. If multiple AI-checkers all return independent results in the 80%+ AI confidence range, that would be the threshold where I would consider starting to take it seriously. An AI presenting something with a 60% confidence rating is about as reliable as reading tea leaves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've already pointed this out to and about these exact editors, so I have to say, I'm pretty unimpressed to see this repeated at ANI. See [383]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  GPTzero is highly confident that your above reply itself is AI generated. Take their results with a grain of salt. 74.254.224.90 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Read carefully before trying to gain some points: "This text is under 100 words, which means your result may be less accurate." And we are talking about the usage of LLM in Wikipedia articles not "Wikipedia comments". Do you have anything else to put in here? Mr.Hanes Talk 20:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  The thing is, even with results well above 100 words, these kinds of "AI detectors" are - somewhat notoriously - rather unreliable. Or at least, they used to be; I suppose it is possible they've improved in the past couple years, but until there's some reliable info concerning updates on that front and genuine reviews made by professional researchers, I'd be careful with trusting these tools. Especially given how, y'know, they're made with AI themselves and all that. NewBorders (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  GPTzero seems to flag anything that is written in a formal style, such as is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, as AI generated. I think that, at the moment, even I am better than GPTzero at spotting something written by AI. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am sorry but No that's not the case at all. Almost all of the well written encyclopaedic FAs like Battle of Köse Dağ [384], Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) [385], Battle of Morlaix [386] and so on.. are written in a natural human tone. You'll barely find any featured article having more than 5-7% of scanning results from GPTzero. To discuss more about this we may need to involve any active member of WP:WPAIC. @Rosguill @Phil Bridger Mr.Hanes Talk 08:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know that FAs are a good point of comparison, as they aren't representative of a typical Wikipedia article. Scanning the leads of random articles until the GPTZero UI kicked me out just now, it looked like GPTZero would guess AI about half the time (I would have taken better notes if I'd known I would lose access). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Rosguill, if you use https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/, it won't kick you out. @Mr.Hanes, I am one such active member, but you don't like what I have to say and have ignored me. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was about to post a comment noting that their results seem to have significantly improved, but I also see that they state Our tool is trained on a dataset including wikipedia articles pre-2023, which means that any article existing pre-2023 is not a fair datapoint for testing. I have run out of time available to dedicate to this question at this moment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the concerns already presented regarding the user, I’ve noticed issues related to WP:AGF, WP:PA, and WP:ASPERSIONS. Accusing [387] another editor of WP:HOUNDING simply because they brought articles to AfD is problematic. For instance, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughal conquest of Mewar, they clearly failed to assume good faith, making personal remarks [388], calling the editor a "troll" and accusing them of engaging in alleged battleground behavior. This culminated in a poorly constructed SPI report [389] that should not have been filed in the first place. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids, I observed that they were dominating the discussion, labeling other good-faith editors as potential meatpuppets or sockpuppets. This kind of behavior makes contributors feel bad or stalked for their votes, ultimately discouraging participation. I advised them that AfD is not the appropriate venue for such accusations, but this, unfortunately, seems to be yet another WP:IDHT situation. Not to mention the above given diff for them casting aspersion on a newcomer [390]. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard's thread on Sambhaji Secretlondon (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mithilanchalputra7, I don't understand why you think they were dominating the discussion on that AfD. They made three comments. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 26 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.

NPA by IP editor

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.

---

IP user 86.23.218.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously blocked for disruptive behaviour on CTOPs, has been engaging in NPA violations as of late. After being reverted on Hope not Hate [391] for NPOV violation, the IP restored their edit twice [392] [393] before engaging in personal attacks on my talk page after I templated them for NPOV while recent changes patrolling. [394] [395] [396] CR (talk) 20:31, 26 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:Rdcarlsonwalden11

• Rdcarlsonwalden11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rdcarlsonwalden11 (talk · contribs) continually adds unsourced or unsupported text, specifically about titles of monarchs. They have received plenty of warnings on their talk page about this but they refuse to communicate and simply restore their edits and continue. Presumably they were editing as an IP earlier. Take for example the article Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor where an IP created a section on titles on 5 February. Rdcarlsonwalden11 (created the following day) then proceeded to add to this. I checked the cited source now and did not find this information in the source. Rdcarlsonwalden11 removed the citation and restored one of the titles after I reverted them and added the fv tag, then they continued to add to this, then they decided to simply re-add the same citation without the fv tag. Mellk (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I left a warning at the user's talk. Let me know if edits are repeated without a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk: I noticed what seem to be repeated edits at Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor by Rdcarlsonwalden11 and 190.83.197.90. I haven't examined the details but left a final warning at the user's talk. Please check the edits and, if necessary, add to your explanation at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: So far, they have not responded on the talk page even though I have asked them for a source. Instead, they have just continually changed the citation. They last changed it to biography.com. Just the front page. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I am leaving a block for the moment after having left a message for the IP. I will monitor. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Regarding Rdcarlsonwalden11, they have changed the citation again and are just re-using one of the citations in the article. Like before, the source cited here does not support what they have written about the titles. This is probably the sixth or seventh fictitious reference they've added to this article, and again, they have not responded to my questions on the talk page.

I am concerned that all their other edits follow a similar pattern. I took a look at Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor and in this edit (as an IP) they added a section on titles and re-used some of the existing citations. Mellk (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk: I'm sorry to drag this out, but since my comment at User talk:190.83.197.90#Warning, the only edit of the user or the IP is this at Janet Leigh. I have reason to believe the user might eventually hear the messages they are being given so I don't think admin action is desirable now. Thank you for your work at Talk:Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor#Titles and please revert anything you think is dubious, perhaps with an edit summary including "see talk". I will act if needed after this post. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I believe that IP is a different person, or did I misunderstand? But I suppose since Rdcarlsonwalden11 has not made any further edits since that message anyway, a block is not yet necessary. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, but both might need monitoring. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to note this seems to have been an issue on almost all the Hapsburg monarch pages. The titles sections were either created, in the instance of Charles VI where random sources were used [397], or Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily [398]. This had been done on every monarch I checked, would some kind of mass rollback be possible? Endor60001 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no good way for a mass rollback because people like me have no clue about whether text is reasonable or not. Please remove anything you think is inappropriate (no need to agonize about it—assuming you have even a tiny bit of knowledge about the topic, just restore whatever version you think). You might use an edit summary like this: remove unsupported changes per [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rdcarlsonwalden11|ANI report]] Let me know if new problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Artinmeysamiraad

Artinmeysamiraad (talk · contribs · logs) is completely non-responsive regarding their edits to bios, which have almost all required reversion. They have made 100 edits and have already gotten blocked for a week for 3RR vio on an article that clearly does not need their help.[399] It does not seem to have influenced their behavior at all, as they still do not communicate on talk or via edit summary, and they are ploughing ahead exactly as before on Abraham Lincoln.[400] Whether they WP:CANTHEARUS or aren't here to build an encyclopedia, it seems there's not much anyone can do about it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:IDHT? Ahri Boy (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope—they're editing on mobile, so it's possible they just don't see any messages they're getting. Remsense ‥ 论 21:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am interested in why you think a pronunciation key being added to this article is an issue. - Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Luckily, inquiring minds can consult the edit summary where I plainly stated what the issue was. Remsense ‥ 论 22:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked the question because I missed your explanation/edit summary in the midst of all the edits & reverts. But I do thank you for your incredibly kind and polite response. - Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Artinmeysamiraad from editing articles and left a message at their talk saying they can be unblocked (no need to consult me) as soon as they agree to discuss disagreements and not edit war. They were recently blocked for a week for edit warring. Communication is required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Use of Convert template for Automobile engine power.

I’m having problems with editor Mr.choppers [401] who reverts every edit I make on anything to do with Cars.

Some background. Mr.choppers and I had a previous dispute resolution resolved in June 2024 titled Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV, 2nd article down [402]

This was resolved with a compromise, future edits were to use the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions guidelines: [403]. This allows the UK and USA to use Horsepower hp as the primary unit of engine power and the rest of the world to use the SI unit kW for vehicles manufactured after 1980. Prior to 1980 the primary unit could be hp or PS with kW added worldwide. The strong national ties were to be based on the manufacturer headquarters location.

I personally find many examples on Wikipedia that do not follow the Automobiles/Conventions, so I edit them to comply. Lately Mr.choppers has reverted multiple edits up to 3 times within 24 hours, Volkswagen Tiguan: [404]

[405]

[406]

[407]

[408] [409]

Mercedes-AMG GT [410]

[411]

[412]

We have had a long discussion on Mr.choppers talk page under "Convert template Order=flip" (near the bottom) and "Convert template" just below it [413] regarding this problem where I have asked specifically what it was he wanted? I find his replies condescending. I only realized after another editor clarified that what Mr.choppers wanted, was the correct punctuation provided by one particular convert templates. But even using the convert template he wanted, he still reverts every edit I make stating I have deleted something that was not there to start with. See [414].

Some of these edits take 2 hours work and it’s difficult to find where it is Mr.choppers finds fault in a large edit. Reverting is easy, but fixing it after a revert is time consuming with the information provided by Mr.choppers. I find his attitude disruptive and not conducive to improving articles. He appears to follow me around so that he can see what I have been editing. He states he follows lots of pages, but when I’ve checked to see if he’s edited something previously and found he has not been there, the next day that article is reverted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi8tor (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Avi8tor, please sign any comments on noticeboards, discussions or talk pages so that other editors know who is talking. Leave your signature. Also, check all of your diffs after posting because the ones I checked were incorrect so I stopped checking them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

My issue is with how to use the convert template when there are three units – which gets a bit complicated when you are also changing the order of the output. I have given Avi8tor copy-pastable examples of how to do so on numerous occasions, including at their talk page. I also listed the specific problems with the edits, including before and after examples, side by side. An uninvolved user even chimed in and created a table, showing how and why Avi8tor's edits were wrong. I have frequently repaired these punctuation issues, but Avi8tor has been introducing these errors to hundreds of articles and I realized I was not getting their attention - which is why I began reverting instead, in the hope that they will take notice and stop introducing these formatting errors.

As an example, in the two edits reversed here, Avi8tor randomly removed "hp" in some locations, replacing it with only kW and PS, while they removed PS in another place, replacing it with only hp and kW. here they also changed the input unit from 210PS to a converted unit, causing the power to read incorrectly as 209PS. Here they changed the kW from the correct 103 to an incorrect, rounded 100. There is just a general carelessness about numbers, punctuation, and output. They may be editing from a smartphone, making it hard to see what the result of their edits are. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the links to show changes. Avi8tor (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Please add one colon when you respond, it makes the conversation easier to follow. Your response seems to have been deleted in a sweep of hidden changes, I think you will have to redo it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Avi8tor either refuses to get the point or is incapable of understanding the issue. Mr.Choppers has tried to explain it to them several times, and Stepho-wrs provided a clear and helpful table indicating how to use the convert template to get the proper result. It is not up to other editors to clean up Avi8tor's errors - reverting them is justified in the face of their refusal to use the template as instructed. Nothing actionable here against Mr.Choppers - but Avi8tor is risking being sanctioned for their behavior. --Sable232 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I get the point, the the discussion in July 2024 covers the rounding accuracy of the conversion. The discussion on Mr.choppers talk page I initially thought was about the same problem, it was Stepho who kindly pointed out it was to do with punctuation generated by the convert template, which I had not noticed or considered. The problem with having numerous incidents on the Noticeboard page is you can update something and because someone else has edited elsewhere while you're busy it is not accepted. Start again! ˜˜˜˜ Avi8tor (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

You state ""Avi8tor randomly removed "hp" in some locations, replacing it with only kW and PS, while they removed PS in another place, replacing it with only hp and kW"". When I click thru your link, I see all 3 units listed, does not look like I removed anything. ˜˜˜˜ Avi8tor (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Avi8tor - you need to look at the output, not the input text. Look at what shows up after your edits.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Sable232 also needs to note: "One of the core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates editing is assume good faith. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, in the discussion on the talk page "I asked what is it you are trying to display?" Why is the semi colon and parentheses position important? A reader is interested in only one of the displayed numbers, depending where they live. ˜˜˜˜ Avi8tor (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion has turned technical in a way that will be lost of the majority of editors who browse this page. Can these matters be sorted out amongst editors working in this subject area? My only recommend is to include an abundance of civility when explaining differences of approach or skil with other editors. I think this complaint is really demanding better communication among editors rather than any behavioral sanctions. Try to be patient and then more patient so we don't have frustrated editors turning to noticeboards to iron out differences that exist among well-intentioned editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I didn't bring it here. It is hard to communicate with Avi8tor; I posted precise examples of what the punctuation, output, and rounding problems are and he just barrels along, assuming that I am arguing about something else (see quote below). I agree that he has some WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues, because two other editors who are familiar with the technical issues in question had no problem comprehending what I was saying and explaining it further.

The discussion on Mr.choppers talk page I initially thought was about the same problem, it was Stepho who kindly pointed out it was to do with punctuation generated by the convert template, which I had not noticed or considered. I even included a how-to which gets the result Avi8tor wants without errors in my comment when I first reverted. I will be even clearer with him from now on, if at all possible.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

So the discussion in green is from whom? Avi8tor (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Avi8tor: I don't know, but I do know how to use a web browser to search for text and it seems to be a short way above. If you have any general questions about {{convert}} please raise them at Template talk:Convert. If there is a disagreement at a particular article, discuss it at the article talk page. This has dragged on too long and your "from whom?" question indicates that continuing would not be productive. If anyone notices further problems, please let me know. There is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Accusation on completely unrelated page

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 have started a discussion on Talk:Bernard_Etxepare#Video about adding [or not] a video, and, completely randomly User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi have accused me of being wikimedian-in-residence for an illegal organization. This is not only completely false, it is also a case of harassment with not even a previous discussion with this user. I ask for help with this. Theklan (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I accused you of nothing. In fact, I pretty explicitly pointed out that you weren't a WIR, etc. In any case, it was clearly a light-hearted remark regarding potential COIs. But: Is this report retaliation for the fact that, despite the discussion being about a Basque writer, when Doug Weller asked if you were employed at the University of the Basque Country, you denied it, saying no, I have never worked for the University of the Basque Country, even though on your own talk page you stated I have a class full of students editing about economy there? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I see you have now clarified you answer to Doug; thank you for that. However, it does suggest that perhaps you are too swift to misread generally harmless comments. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:52, 26 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.

Legal threat by IP editor, purportedly on behalf of Widerøe

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 [415] with edit summary "Widerøe was. The launch customer and it operated this type. Any attempt to remove the Widerøe name from primary users will be met by legal action from Widerøe.". The main users field of the aircraft infobox is reserved for the airlines with the largest number of a given aircraft in their fleet, for which Widerøe no longer qualifies in this case. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

/64 blocked 2 weeks for legal threats. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:08, 28 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.

Barelvi movement

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.

---

• Barelvi movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No one is willing to talk on the Barelvi movement article, that's why I am forced to come here. There's not a single piece of information, a single WP:RS source saying Barelvis adhere to the Shafi'i school. The entire article only states the Hanafi school, to which all Barelvi scholars adhered (Ahmad Raza Khan and his family, Abdul Hamid Qadri Badayuni, Ahmad Saeed Kazmi, Amjad Ali Aazmi, Ilyas Qadri etc. and all others in the 'Notable scholars' section). Barelvi books such as Fatawa-i Razawiyya, Zujajat al-Masabih, Manaqib-al-Jaleela are all Hanafi law works and all Barelvi madrasas listed in the article are Hanafi, not a single Shafi'i reference! The claim that Barelvis in Southern India adhere to Shafi'ism is simply incorrect; Sufis in southern India do in fact adhere to the Shafi'i school, although they are not specifically called Barelvis, such as Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, Sayyid Abdurahman Al-Aidarusi Al-Azhari etc. The South Indian Shafi'i Sufis may be Barelvi-oriented (such as Abubakr Ahmad) or Deobandi-oriented (such as Abdurrahman al-Aidarusi). There's a difference between regular Sufis and Barelvis. Blocked sock ScholarM added in his edit that Barelvis are also Shafi'i, although this was unsourced back then and still now. Can someone from here, the Adminstrator's noticeboard, edit the Barelvi movement article and Template:Barelvi and remove "Shafi'i" from there. Shafi'iman (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please... just post on the talk page for the article, or make the edit yourself. This is complete WP:OVERKILL and also not what WP:ANI is for. I would advise either you to withdraw, or for this to be WP:SNOWCLOSEd. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

ANI is used to report conduct disputes between editors, not content requests. Open up an edit request on the talk page. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please address on the article talk page. If, after discussion there, there remains a dispute, follow the steps at WP:DR. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:53, 28 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.

ThantBhoneHtet1123

ThantBhoneHtet1123 (talk · contribs) has numerous warnings about adding uncited material to articles, and they've just done it again[416]. It's not vandalism exactly, so I can't take it to the vandalism noticeboard. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Strongly non-neutral ITN nominations by IP editor

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.

---

There are strongly non-neutral ITN stories being repeatedly re-added by IP address 192.184.150.127 (talk · contribs). This is trolling in my eyes, given they've been warned and appear to have some knowledge of Wikipedia in general. See Special:Diff/1277942294 and Special:Diff/1277941267 templating the regulars, Special:Diff/1277939462 I hope donald trump uses military force to end the protestors. Communism killed 100,000,000 people and it cant happen here again. God bless the USA!, Special:Diff/1277942744 re-adding removed story, and now they've brought a regular to WP:AN3. We've extended more than enough rope, in my opinion. Departure– (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish has blocked for 31 hours, so thankfully we’re done for now. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment They've been blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish for 31 hours one minute after this was posted. I wouldn't be too shocked if they come back under a different IP etc, so I'll be keeping an eye on WP:ITNC. Departure– (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, they had reported me at EWN which didn’t end well for them. E_F⁵ 16:40, 27 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:Realityteav

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

User:Realityteav has been edit-warring on all of the Survivor articles in violation of MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR. User:Masem, an administrator, has already explained that these edits are inappropriate and in violation of the MOS, but Realityteav's responses have been along the lines of "I like this" and "other articles [are in violation], so I don't see why these shouldn't be as well", and we are approaching WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I thought this issue was settled back in 2022, but here we are again. Relevant discussions regarding the issues with these tables are spread out over numerous Survivor articles, including Survivor:Borneo, where Realityteav and his IP sockpuppet reverted edits five times on February 18th. If an administrator could please impress upon Realityteav that MOS:ACCESS is not a suggestion, that would be great. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppets have continued to attack these articles. I am not reporting all 49 seasons to RPP until the root problem has been addressed. An examination of edits demonstrate that User:Realityteav and IP 199.250.237.52 are clearly the same person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to add that the removal of the colors per the MOS had been previously discussed and decided by consensus (likely at the survivor bornoe talk page archives), a move I know survivor fans did not like, so this seems a long tail extension of that given how fast the colors were added from earlier revisions. Masem (t) 16:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

97.77.82.187 -- Further block evasion by Visaa11

• 97.77.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Visaa11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [417][418][419][420]. Janhrach (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio and WP:CIR issues from user Abishe

I raised the issues with User:Abishe previously in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#Abishe's problematic article creations, which didn't get much reaction. Looking at his most recent creations now, I see again too many serious issues. I described them in User talk:Abishe#Copyright violations and other issues, but considering the serious and recurring issues, I bring it directly here to plead for sanctions, at the very least removal of autopatrolled, but preferably a mainspace block.

Their most recent mainspace creation was Draft:ACUMER, which has a number of copyright violations (the ones I could easily spot have been listed on their user talk), plus some other issues like NPOV ("Iran had abandoned SWIFT to pursue greener pastures"?). Poor writing, one of the issues I raised previously as well, can be seen in e.g. Govi Thaththa, something like "The film is based on real life incidents which unfolded in the backdrop of farming and delves into the topic based on the real life situations faced by a typical farming community which hails from a prominent hamlet called Unagalawehera."

But what brought me here was the mainspace article before that one, Draft:Acumer polymer, which starts with

"Acumer polymer also simply known as Acumer is a typical flagship brand of polymer manufactured by Dow Chemical Company according to a quick Google search supported by a verified claim through Artificial Intelligence." (Emphasis mine).

After 8 years, 37000 edits and more than 2000 new articles, one would hope that an editor would know better than this. Fram (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• About time someone cared to bring this issue here. I support an indefinite CIR block for long-term issues with Abishe. Dympies (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Umm. Busted, one might say :( --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Even where the article is decently sourced, spot-checking some creations reveals a shocking amount of oddly written, unencyclopedic writing that has never been addressed.

• In Mohammed Qahtani, He gained significant traction and was a centre of attention in public speaking forum when he was adjudged as the outright winner of the Toastmasters International World Championship of Public Speaking in 2015 and He utilised his strong essence of humour, which had been his strength when delivering his public speeches at Toastmasters to counter the weaknesses of his stage presence and vocal delivery.
• In Richard Madley, The auction which he conducted at the World Trade Centre was subject to a massive terrorist attack on 11 September 2001, famously dubbed as the 9/11 attack, and the building was demolished exactly eight days later after Richard Madley had hosted an auction at the building. and Richard Madley rose to prominence and limelight for his professional conduct of IPL auctions.
• In Craig Rich, He received spotlight and acclaim for exposing the true story behind yachtsman Donald Crowhurst, whose disappearance from his trimaran in the mid-Atlantic was shrouded in mystery, before being confirmed to have committed suicide. and Although his job requirements initially specified to cover weather forecasting at Spotlight, he was fast-tracked to provide his knowledge expertise in other news stories circulated in the agenda of action items including 1979 Fastnet Race and the 1981 Penlee lifeboat disaster. The colleagues who worked along with him at the BBC insisted that Craig Rich would bring a sense of humor and laugh riot in the newsroom even amidst stressful circumstances.

These aren't cherry-picked as the three worst articles, they're simply the first three I checked, and I had to narrow the awkward writing down to the two worst ones. Reading further, there's more WP:PEACOCK than in NBC's ads for a year. These wouldn't be so bad in isolation, but these types of phrases basically fill up entire articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Abishe from article space pending discussion on whether they can fix the issues raised above or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

And I've removed autopatrolled, as that is reserved for those who don't need NPP review and is really there to reduce the load on the reviewers by removing known good article creations from the queue. Some of these articles definitely could have benefitted from review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and removed NPR for the time being, not that it's been utilized much by them (last 100 pages marked as patrolled goes back a bit over 2 years). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I accept the blunders of mine for having breached the policies in writing Wikipedia articles in an unencyclopedic manner. I admit my wrongdoing and shortcomings especially when writing articles. My editing style changed a lot due to my own exposure to Toastmasters International where I took up grammarian roles to come up with thought provoking words and I decided to use these terms very often in daily life and the interest in Toastmasters has also translated into this kind of editing habits of mine in Wikipedia platform. I know this is an unacceptable response to a serious investigation proceedings against me. My adventurous nature in trying to utilise the lesser known vocabulary English terms and words in real life has become a huge gamble where I have come to an extent of losing my editing privilege due to the misusing and abusing of autopatrolled rights. I know that I am under immense scrutiny for my style of writing which has frustrated many editors. I apologize for this sudden shift in mindset of mine as my passionate interest in trying to elevate the content has eventually backfired resulting in mediocre output. I was somehow convinced that I am doing a fantastic job by creating long lengthy articles, as I got a sense of pride and self satisfaction when I pushed beyond my usual best. But what I now realise is this is not what was expected from me when a plethora of Wikipedians have been critical of my work and then I acknowledge the fact that my cognitive bias got the better of me. I falsely assumed that I am doing an amazing thing by sharing knowledge to the viewers. I was so dumb that I was so confident with my writing skills thinking it will help me to believe myself and to create a benchmark for myself. I got a reality check and I have tarnished my own reputation. I accept to let go off my ego and let go off my autopatrolled rights, but I beg another chance for me to prove my mettle and come back well with a more clear mindset. I agree to the sanctions like stripping off autopatrolled rights, but I am appealing got me to get back to editing mainspace articles. I hope I can resurrect myself and revisit the basics. Please don't blacklist me and please don't ban me for lifetime. I want to emphasize that I am keen on writing but yeah I do agree at times pointed out by Fram that I had violated copyrights. I will try to overcome these drawbacks of mine. I am an ardent reader having read self-help books including Don't Believe Everything You Think by Joseph Nguyen and after reading it I got a kind of enlightenment that I should trust my instincts and do what makes me happy while the book emphasizes on thinking leads to suffering. I do read lot of e-books, internet articles where different authors come up with different vocabulary usage and I decided to incorporate such words in articles thinking that this could encourage me skills of English proficiency. Abishe (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

So are you not fluent in English? This response is not LLM, but it’s rather wordy. Wikipedia is not the place to learn English. Have you tried Simple Wikipedia? 164.52.251.114 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone who is excited to use lesser known vocabulary English terms is not going to do well on simple-wiki. It's not "the wiki for people who aren't good at English". -- asilvering (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The writing style is an issue, but it is probably less concerning than issues with copyright, and sourcing using llms. I picked a created article at random, Weerodara, and found some close paraphrasing, along with the article text going a bit beyond what the source said. CMD (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

An important thing to remember is that one key aspect of giving speeches (or writing) is to write for the audience. A lively speech and an article in an encyclopedia are two very different things. I share your fascination with words -- I write for a living -- and adore words like jejune or tatterdemalion that have a timbre distinct from other, similar words. But writing for an encyclopedia is not that kind of exercise. Adding in that this is a language that you're learning makes flowery language even more dangerous, because even in a low-context language like English, a non-native speaker can miss similar words that read in very different ways.

I suspect if you slowed down a lot in the writing, and focused on function over form, some of the other issues would be easier for you to clear up. An admin would obviously have to agree, but if you could take a few of your articles, and clean them up on your talk page, with functional text and no copyright lifting, I believe it would get you a long way towards getting your full editing rights back. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Endorsing the above, but I'd suggest that you use a user subpage rather than your talk page, since you're only blocked from mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)